From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 02/19/02-01:32:21 PM Z
Take this anecdotal data for what it is, but I had a conversation with a
gallery owner today about presenting my work in a nontraditional way (no
mat, no glass, just mounted on a cradled panel and sealed well) and was
strongly discouraged from doing so. The arguments were two: (1) that
people are used to seeing my work presented a certain way and won't like
surprises (which I'm not sure I buy; it sure doesn't give the public
much credit for intelligence and flexibility) and (2) it could present
a problem for potential buyers who expect to see a photograph framed
under glass and would be rendered skittish, maybe even scared off, by no
glass. Even though you assure them that the print is sealed and
protected from damage and can be treated essentially like an acrylic
painting, they still would be skeptical, would be afraid that the print
could be too easily damaged, or that it would need special care that
they are not competent to provide. I don't know if this is an accurate
measure of the attitudes of potential buyers of alternative photographs,
or of gallery owners in general, but if it is, I'd say be prepared to
spend some time educating and cajoling your public (and your gallery
personnel) if you want to go this route, unless you happen to have a
name like Mapplethorpe.
I haven't decided yet how much weight I will give this information in
the decision I make, but thought I'd share it since we've touched on
this so recently.
kt
Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
>
> The question is timely, as I have for some time been toying with the
> idea of showing my work unframed, and am experimenting with an idea as
> we speak,
>
> Keith Gerling wrote:
> >
> > Say, Katherine, speaking of framing gum prints and gallery shows, I have an
> > off-the-wall (no pun intended - on second thought, that's pretty good!)
> > question for you: I love gum prints. That goes without saying. Love
> > everything about them, including the surface of the paper and how the gum
> > glimmers in areas where its thicker. Recently, I took the glass out of a
> > couple of prints and hung them up, framed, matted, and no glass. I kind of
> > like them that way. Is this a totally ridiculous concept for showing and
> > selling prints in a gallery setting?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:35 AM
> > To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > Subject: Re: A Process to Suit the Subject
> >
> > Grafist@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > .............................................
> > > Hi Catherine,
> >
> > ..... you write, "Gum is so versatile you can adjust it
> > > to any printing
> > > aesthetic or to any subject whatever." This is a very attractive
> > concept
> >
> > With Dick's permission I'll post some images on the B&S site to
> > illustrate what I mean about the range of expression and tonal scale
> > possible with gum, when I can find some time to do that. Right now I'm
> > getting things ready for the gallery to meet publicity deadlines for my
> > upcoming show, and then there's finishing the printing and framing and
> > all that, so it won't be right away.
> > Katharine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST