Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:37:43 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Bob Kiss wrote:
> 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
That's not necessarily true for *living * photographers. David Vestal says
his dealer gets much more money for the prints he made during the 1940s,
even though his later prints from the same negatives are (David says) much
better prints because he is more skilled.
> ....I say again, every negative is an historical document, much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...
Aha ! I've just been reading William Mortensen's "Command to Look" (a
most interesting little book by the way & if you happen to have one, note
that it's listing at $300 to 500), where Mortensen advises that EVERY
local and temporal trace -- power lines, signs, styles, fashion, etc.
should be expunged, eliminated -- so the work can be "timeless."
The very next day I came across someone advising the opposite ... like Bob
says above, include every possible detail of the slice of time & space.
But just to show how Morty sticks in the mind -- I can't for the life of
me remember who that 2nd person was. (But I'll remember Kiss -- whatta
name!)
cheers,
Judy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37