From: Robert W. Schramm (schrammrus@hotmail.com)
Date: 02/20/02-07:23:37 AM Z
Katharine,
I once took a photograph of a couple sitting on the quay in Paris that I
liked, scanned it and dumped it into Photoshop where I went to work on the
image with a combination of filters so t
hat the image eventually looked slightly impressionistic and had the look of
an acrylic painting. I then got a service bureau to print the image out on a
heavy paper with a canvas pattern in it about 18" x 24". This was glued to
foam core board and placed in a rather nice gold frame. I used a small brush
and acrylic paint to affix my signiture. I have displayed this piece along
with my other work and gotten several nice comments. Often I hear, " Oh I
didn't know you did art work as well as photography." ;-)
Frankly, I don't much like photographs that are bled to the edge and mounted
on a board with no mat and frame. The reason for this is partly because the
mat and frame and maybe even the glass tell the viewer that,
"this is a work of art." Even though the matter of whether photography is
art or not has been settled long ago, I'm not sure that the general public
is, as yet, convienced. Also,I tend to used the term "Fine Art Photography"
as much as possible to distinguish what I do from commercial photography
like weddings and school photos, etc. As far as the average citizen is
concerned, the "fat lady" has not yet sung on this issue. Of course, maybe
we don't all care.
Bob Schramm
>From: Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Gum without glass
>Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 19:32:21 +0000
>
>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
Check out my web page at:
also look at:
http://www.wlsc.wvnet.edu/www/pubrel/photo.html
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST