From: Callie Type (kallitype@hotmail.com)
Date: 03/12/01-10:56:09 AM Z
What's wrong with this:
Lukas Worth says,
"All this "they were hanging for twenty years in the
verandah, and look as they did the first day" seems to me so much guesswork
and soothing of one's fears. I have had prints on RC paper on some walls for
more than 20 years; they still look the same for me, but unless I could go
back in time, and am not confident to recognize a subtle fading. "
Curious, indeed. So the artist's own judgement is no longer to be trusted.
No, Lukas, I know what you mean and I truly do not mean to disparage those
that wish to assure that they're work will live for centuries, but are we
not close to putting the cart before the horse? I'd like to share a few
random thoughts. I'm not trying to provoke any arguments, and I realize
that they may sound "heretical", but here goes:
1) Photographs often find themselves hanging on walls. In my case, I have
actually hung a few of my own works, and in the case of the kallitype I
mentioned, it has been pinned to a bulletin board, exposed to the light and
air, and it hasn't changed. Guesswork? Soothing of my fears? I see fresh
kallitypes every day, sir, as they come out of the wash. I know what they
look like. I have experience in this, and while I am enough of a Kantian to
recognize the limits of my own perception, I know what I see. Experience
and success begets confidence.
2) Things do change with time. My kallitypes may, in fact, fade. Of the
very small collection of works by others that I have aquired, I doubt that
any of them look exactly the same as they did when they were created. I
treat them with respect and love. I have no assurances, nor do any of us,
that our works will be similarly treated. Things do die. Even things that
are loved.
3) I suppose it is to our credit that we are perhaps the ONLY body of
artists that are concerned about longevity of our work, at least to the
point where we question whether our work should even be made, pending
absolute certainty that it will never change. In other artistic realms,
there is a freedom to create outside of this hobbling concern. Oil
paintings, for instance, change constantly: they take years to dry, they
crack and yellow. The same for tempera, and who knows anything about
acrylic? Yet oil painters continue, seemingly oblivious to the knowledge
that their work will change in time. Most metal sculptures develop a
"patina" of some kind, watercolors fade, digital works will "drop bits" and
eventually disinigrate (they can be copied, of course, but that takes a
pro-active action on the part of those tending them. If Bill Viola's video
works are not copied routinely, they will eventually disappear.) And what
of other photographers? Cindy Sherman's huge, expensive C-41 prints of mold
growing on entrails and sausages coming out doll orifices will fade away in
time (hallelujah for that, perhaps). Annie Liebowitz, I am told, used
non-archival pigments on the inkjet prints of her latest, scrumpteous nudes,
because she was not satisfied with the color of the archival inksets. They
sell for 5 figures and they will fade. Oh well, that's THEM and we are US.
(and has anybody seen the work of Wolgang Laib? His media include pollen,
milk, beeswax. Not the best choices for permanence. Beautiful stuff, but I
digress.)
(I just remembered Josph Beuys' work "Greasy Corner". Talk about
non-archival!)
4) With our own concern for archival printing, we have participated in
shooting ourselves in our financial foot. Perhaps it is well and good that
we even bother to show any concern for the lasting qualities of our works,
but with other artists showing VERY LITTLE concern, we appear to be a bunch
of Chicken Littles. Let me share a little acecdote: A student of mine was
attempting to interest a gallery in her kallitype and palladium prints. The
gallery owner, not knowing much about these processes, did a little
investigative work (probably web searches) and turned my friend down. Seems
that gallery did not want to take a chance with selling risky, potentially
fugitive works. Honorable gallery owner, right? Why then did this gallery
do so much bisiness in C-41, Poloroid tranfers, and inkjet prints? It seems
as if the galleries (who should know better) avoid addressing the topic of
arhivalness, and claim to assume that the buying collector knows what they
are getting. I wonder.
As for your 20 year old RC prints, Lukas, do you still like them? Do they
still speak to you and others? If so, than you are fortunate to have been
able to make something special. Maybe their voice will grow weaker as the
centuries pass, but for now, be thankful that 20 years ago your concern for
archivalness did not squelch your creative act.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:25 AM Z CST