From: Lukas Werth (lukas.werth@rz.hu-berlin.de)
Date: 03/12/01-02:36:16 PM Z
At 16:56 12.03.01 +0000, you wrote:
>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
>
>
Callie,
er, yes. Actually, I think I can agree with most of what you say. To answer
your last question first: no, I don't really like most of these prints any
more. They also do not hang on my walls. But this has nothing to do with
fading or not fading.
My statement was less intended about the ideal of permanence in all art,
but about the insufficiency of personal guesswork which sounded to me a bit
like children whistling in the dark. My remark about centuries was meant to
comprehend, first of all, intentions of listmembers, judging from former
messages I have read.
And yes, of course, general ideas about the permanence of art do not hold
true any more. What again is the name of this chap who exhibits decaying
carcasses?
Personally, I must admit that the idea of permanence IS attractive to me -
therefore the personal plea in my last message - and still I want to try
some salt prints in the near future (my posting was partly inspired by
thoughts about this plan). Rationally seen, my wish for permanence is
probably stupidity - true, who knows what will happen to one's prints? But
still, what I had in mind using the phrase "artistic statement" was, in my
case, to set a sign - though I am not sure for whom ;-) - to a fleeting
world and its Leibowitzes.
But about the permanence in the world of art: egg tempera is among the most
stable colours, as far as I know. And for those pieces of art which are not
cast into a definite material form, like poetry: only their content may
undergo an aging process.
Lukas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:26 AM Z CST