From: Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Date: 05/28/00-10:45:46 PM Z
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Kiss <bobkiss@caribsurf.com>
To: ALT PHO PROC. <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 7:57 AM
Subject: EINE KLEINE QUESTION
> DEAR ROD ET AL.
> Two small additions to "A Question" which may be of help to someone.
> Firstly, my friend the curator, Jose Orracca, (same guy who
recommended
> Renaissance wax) responded to my question about whether or not to dry
mount
> prints was "From your perspective, no! From my perspective as an archivist
> who will be paid lots of money by collectors of your work to carefully
> remove your prints from damaged or degenerated mount boards (yes, even
100%
> cotton) PLEASE dry mount them all!" He was kidding, of course and stood
> strongly against dry mounting. He cited the MANY Adams prints that he had
> to carefully remove from their broken down mount boards and CORRECTLY
hinge
> with archival tape from the back of the print to the back of the window
> overmatte. He also stated clearly that Adams told him (yep, he know him)
> that he waxed his prints for the following reasons:
> A) Protect the image from finger marks etc
> B) Waxing opens up the deep shadow detail without reducing D-max.
> Next, I discovered that it is nearly impossible to get pencil to take
to
> the front of a waxed print and that the waxing process wipes off pencil
> marks made before waxing!
> Sooooo, singing on the mount board isn't a good idea. Signing, dating
> and (egad!) numbering in pencil on the back is.
> I still cannot figure out why we live in a world when things forced
upon
> us by advertising and marketing have their prices inflated by artificial
> control of supply but we artists and photographer who bring beauty to
this
> otherwise amazingly materialistic world are opposed to protecting our
> incomes and the values for our collectors by limiting our editions. This
> list had this discussion about 10 months ago but I guess it will never
rest.
> It IS STANDARD GALLERY procedure to make a limited edition and retire the
> negative to a vault for 100 years so the photographer will not make any
> more. We tend to keep negatives because any image, regardless of its
> original intent, is an historical document and of interest to students,
hist
> orians, sociologists etc in the future. Yes, we can, and many
contemporary
> fine photographers are, having it both ways...as long as procedures are
> clearly stated and adhered to. I, for one, believe that, since I am
> unwilling to join them, I will beat them at their own game while remaining
> an artist true to my aesthetic muses. Two hats? Schizophrenia? Heck yeah!
> "Was and is to be". We have two halve brains and some define sanity as the
> ability for those two to communicate and live in harmony. After all,
> Michaelangelo DID collect his gold from Pope Julius (the second?) after he
> finished the ceiling...didn't he?
>
> CHEERS!
>
BOB
> KISS
>
What does this process do for the wrinkling of the print fixed to the over
mat, window mat?
Steve Shapiro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:22 PM Z CST