From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/28/00-11:09:37 PM Z
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Gregory Parkinson wrote:
> Pulling this back to something specifically alt-related, one of the
> reasons I was attracted to alt processes was because the end result
> feels more "art" to me, in this sense "art" meaning singular, unique,
> not mass-produced (or producible). A thing that you could say was,
> because of how it was created, singular. Non-factory (to co-opt
> Judy's terminology.) Value based on rarity.
And I also like the sense of *labor intensive* --though that can cut both
ways. In GOOD art the labor is a generous gift, in BAD art, it's heavy
handed or guilt mongering.
> Otherwise, why are we going to this effort? It's the effort that
> is definitional - as digital processes improve it is possible to
> create the _look_ of anything an alt process can do. I've been
Not QUITE the look -- maybe in repro, but there's a tactile sense to gum
printing at least that inkjet lacks.
> doing this with my toy camera work, I did enough noodling with
> junk cameras (Diana, etc) to be able to start with a sharp
> P&S 35mm shot and use Photoshop to make it look like it was
> taken with an uncoated edge-weak 40's medium-format folder.
> Happy accidents are no longer accidents as you learn what
> defines them. I make them singular by scribbling over them
> with pastels, pencils, watercolor, cosmetics, etc.
>
> So Helmut Newton makes art. Glossy, reproducible images.
> Albert Watson does fashion but uses alt processes. Looks like
> art to me, and I'd rather own a Watson hand-made print than a
> Newton (chunk, chunk, stamp out another copy) print.
>
> Image vs print, object. I'd be fascinated to hear why the
> people on this list make the effort to create an image that
> requires far more work.
>
> Greg (who hates slow processes but is attracted to the results)
>
Best, from Judy, who loves slow processes -- there's already too much
"art" in the world.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT