From: Robert W. Schramm (schrammrus@hotmail.com)
Date: 06/06/02-04:19:44 PM Z
Richard makes some very good points. Photography is an artistic medium but
not all photographs are works of art. I belong to the Daguerriean Society
which has hundreds of members, most of whom are collectors. Out of a
membership of around 5-600, only about 16 of us are actual daguerreotypists.
The collectors do not, as a rule, buy contemporary daguerreotypes but will
pay a lot of money for 19th century, rare plates. Only a small number, maybe
a handful, of contemporary dag makers are, in my opinion, using the process
as an alternative process for making fine art images.
I don't know about the other dag makers, but if I can get two "good" plates
made between 8 am and noon, I consider that a successful session. Talk about
limited edition. After a morning spent buffing plates (by hand) you know
what a limited edition really is.
To some extent, I could say the same thing about platinum prints. I guess I
could make more platinum prints in four hours but the key word is "good" so
it wouldn't be a whole lot more.
I don't think I would want anyone else to make prints from my negatives.
Richard is right. There is something about being intimatly envolved with
the print in alternative process work.
I disagree with him about digital work however. Anyone who has expertese
with Photoshop and who has tried to control an ink jet printer knows that
there are as many variables in creating a fine art giclee print as there are
in the alternative processes. However, to repeat myself. Giclee prints can
be an artistic medium but not all giclee prints are works of art.
Bob Schramm
Check out my web page at:
also look at:
http://www.wlsc.wvnet.edu/www/pubrel/photo.html
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/02/02-10:33:22 AM Z CST