From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 02/06/00-02:43:23 AM Z
I myself have no problem with calling a Gloy or PVA print a gum
> print, in the same way we might call a photo copy a "xerox" even if it was
> made on a Canon.
I can't make this analogy work for me. Xerox and Canon are both
photocopy machines and do not differ in much except for the names on the
faceplates, while pva and gum arabic are completely different
substances. I also have some trouble with the argument equating the two
through language: pva is a glue, and gum arabic, while not a glue, is an
*ingredient* in glue, and in the UK, glue is called gum, therefore:
pva=gum? The logic is a bit shaky....
Calling a pva print a gum print is more like calling a fax a photocopy,
than like calling a xerox a photocopy. I have no problem with calling a
fax a photocopy for convenience, since they are both machines that
reproduce documents, but let's be sure we understand that there is a
distinction between the two things. In the same way, while people use
both pva and gum arabic to produce "gum" prints using the same general
set of instructions, I'd be willing to bet conservators won't see them
as the same thing at all.
I don't really expect pva printers to suddenly start calling their
prints something other than gum prints; I'm only saying that we should
recognize that there is a difference between the two kinds of "gum"
prints, and that it's confusing to have them called the same thing. And
no, I don't consider pva prints *inferior* to prints made using gum
arabic, only different from them.
Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04/24/00-04:37:09 PM Z CST