From: Luc Novovitch (luc@overland.net)
Date: 03/12/01-08:44:55 PM Z
on 3/12/01 14:36, Lukas Werth at lukas.werth@rz.hu-berlin.de wrote:
> 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.
A reflexion about permanence... if I may. After being a photographer for
more than 25 years (read making a living from my photography) it seems to me
more and more that permanence is a would be photographer/sunday
photographer/I have a day job photographer obsession. After almost 3 years
running my own gallery, selling my own pictures (silver prints and pl/pd and
soon carbon if I can master the &^%#@$@ coating!), no one, nobody, never
asked about permanence of my images. I'm not talking about the average
person pushing the door. I'm talking about buyers. I do have pix in museums,
private collections, on people's walls, in people's drawers probably, etc...
And nobody never asked about permanence. So my question is: who cares? I
don't mean to be rude or insulting. I just mean: if people who actually
acquire photography don't ask or care, who cares? The pictures takers? The
technicians? The guys who know all the Kodak, Ilford, Agfa litterature? The
ones talking about photography but not doing it?
I'd really like to know, because so far all the photographers I like, and
some I admire, don't give a dang about permanence. If they do their own
printing, they process the best they know, and that's it. And if they
don't... Most of the actual 'big' names don't even print, or know how to
print, their images. Do you really think they care about permanence?
/ln
-- mailto:luc@overland.net http://www.sotolgallery.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:26 AM Z CST