Bob Kiss (bobkiss@caribsurf.com)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:45:05 -0700
The strictest definition of a vintage print is the first finished print
made by the photographer. The term has evolved to include THOSE PRINTS MADE
BY THE HAND OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER. Not a difficult concept and after 100 years
in a vault it is rather certain that the photographer will not be around
tomake any more.
There are many parallels between photography and painting but likening a
Van Gogh brush to a negative is not one of them. Which would you rather
own...an Adams print or an Adams 8X10 film holder? Further, once Mr. Talbot
and Dr. Hirschell made their Positive/Negative thing photography moved a
greater step away from comparison with painting. I am certainly not
discussing materials or processes...I am discussing the very real questions
of print valuation and collectability. (Is that even a word?)
Lets harken back to Jewelia's erudite statements about culture. Since
the 1850s, photography has been seen as THE documentary medium. Our culture
views it that way and no change seems in sight. Some photographs originally
intended as "art" have held great insights for socioligists and historians.
Some originally intended as as documents are presently collected for their
aesthetic value.
Of course no one will stop you from destroying your negatives...free
will is still assumed to exist. I did say "PLEASE" don't destroy your
negatvies..."Please" meaning I wanted you to think first that you may very
well be destroying history...if only your very personal one...
perhaps one important to your descendents and even one more important to
future students, historians and people like ourselves...fellow practitioners
of our arts and crafts. You won't be around to worry about it. Let the
future have the chance to enjoy your vision. We all work hard to make prints
that will last but there is no guarantee that they will be available to
researchers. I say again, every negative is an historical document, much
more so than a painting because of the magic that makes photography
unique...the detail, the slice of time and space and, except for photograms,
an inexorable connection to subject...regardless of your original intention
while making the negative. I could as likely destroy a negative as burn a
book...I couldn't do it. But, as has been pointed out, this is personal.
All I ask is that the consequences of one's actions be considered.
I have a definite bias here because I have performed archival and
curatorial work on two collections of negatives of deceased Barbadian
photographers. One, Euchard Fitzpatrick, made film negatives from 1934 to
1977 when his eyes began to fail. The other,
Mr. Parkinson, made glass plate negatives from 1880 to 1937. They did some
portraits, some architectural, some industrial, some "personal". Most of the
prints are lost but we now have a rather complete pictorial history of
Barbados from 1880 to 1977...the rest is available from contemporary
photographers. Images made for commercial purposes of cane juice factories
and early electrical generators are filled with racial and cultural history
as well as having some incredibly beautiful renditions of light.
"Mine eyes have seen the glory..." I shall not destroy.
CHEERS!
BOB KISS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37