Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:02:07 -0600
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a thorough skeptic. I don't indulge in
very much that could be called mystical. But I do remember as a kid of 12
or 13 (c 1952) growing up in Washington D.C. (Arlingotn Va.) of going into
town with a couple of friends. We ended up at the Ford Theatre where
Lincoln was shot. In those days it was not a real museum like it is today.
It was still a theatre and they had some glass cases of stuff around. We
were ooohing and ahhing over one of the cases and some guy in charge came
over and started talking to us. He eventually opened the case with his key
and let each of us put on the spectacles Lincoln wore the night he was
shot. I still get goose bumply thinking about it. Of course no sane museum
curator would do any such thing today.
I also was at Ron Partidge's house in Berkeley about 10 years ago. Ron is
one of Imogene's twin boys. (Imogene who?) One of the rituals at Ron's
place is to drink espresso from Edward's espresso pot. (Edward who?)
There is some connectedness that we make through objects. I think the
German's have a word for this as they have words for all kinds of emotions.
In English sadly we don't. The same kind of thing connects us to an artist
through his art. The glasses were in fact just an old pair of glasses but
somehow I still feel as if I made some connection to Lincoln -- I even feel
it today. Any chemical test on the espresso would show it to be espresso
like any other, but in a sense it is maybe the closest thing we have to a
Photographic Holy Communion.
No one quite cringes over cancelling a plate the same way they cringe over
destroying a negative. Perhaps the negative is connected to some bygone
reality where the plate is just connected to the artist. Just some random
thoughts.
--Dick
At 01:50 PM 7/22/99 -0700, you wrote:
>I do understand your meaning in all this, but there are so many issues it
>brings up to say the least. Owning an Ansel Adams print or an 8x10 film
>holder? Well if it was not a print done when Ansel was alive with his
>signature the answer is quite easy. The film holder, and it would be kept
>for special images at that. As far as saving the negatives so people can
>share your vision. Well that is part of why I am troubled with this in the
>first place. My point is the negative is not your vision at all. Just
>another tool to get to your vision, the PRINT. The negative is information
>that you use to create that image with. Just like the developer you use or
>the lens you choose. All the things that go into the final print the artist
>included. All these things influence the way that final print looks. I do
>agree in many cases where the artist was unknown at the time that it is very
>important and fullfilling to see thier work even in a diminished way. This
>debate has gone on and on in the photographic arts for years. And I am sure
>just like the rest of history it will repeat itself over and over for many
>more to come. So I will leave it with, it is a personal choice.
>
>A wonderful day to you all,
>
>Kurt
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com
http://www.workingpictures.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:37