From: clay (wcharmon@wt.net)
Date: 01/26/02-11:11:51 PM Z
Judy said:
>I think what you say is true, Clay, but it's surely not the only reason.
>If you've ever heard a dealer (um, excuse me, gallerist) sell a platinum
>print you'd know that it's touted as the ultimate queen (king?) of
>processes, simply by being -- platinum! Which is to say, if platinum cost
>what silver costs, I doubt it would be so revered.
If what you're saying is that image itself is the only truly important
factor, I would have to agree. I must confess that one of the things about
the Pt/Pd process that appeals to me is that I find it easier to make images
that satisfy me than in other processes. You've busted me, I'm lazy.
>Platinum is/can be a gorgeous process. Too often it's a bore.
No doubt. I think this can be true of all the alt-processes. Some of the
processes seem to be hiding mediocre images behind 'interesting craft'. I've
seen a lot of banal
stuff passing itself off as art in the gum and cyanotype world just as in
the
platinum world. At least with Pt/Pd, its easy to tell if its bad. Usually
the bad Pt/Pd images CLEARLY are substandard, while in some of the other
processes, I'm never
quite sure if the image is due to accident or intent.
Interesting comments. I had never given much thought to the snob factor, but
you do have a point.
Thanks,
Clay
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/15/02-11:47:41 AM Z CST