From: Alejandro Lopez de Haro (alhr@wanadoo.fr)
Date: 03/09/02-03:44:18 AM Z
Hi to all:
The future of commercial and everyday photography it seems is in the so call
digital photography. But, Fine Art Photography future and present is in the
prints made by the hand of the artist. The uniqueness of the artist proof,
the one and only print, or the number 23 out of 25 that make each of them a
little different from the others is what makes the future of the "wet print"
something special.
The art of doing Art by the hand of the artist and the way it is translate
into the image because in the manner in which the artist makes the strokes
of the brush on that special paper, which he could have made himself, or
because the rhythmic movements of his hands when he wants the image a little
darker or lighter on silver base image. All of these, plus others
intangibles like the artist delicacy in applying the coat on the paper, the
application of pigments, the care of the print when it is being clear, wash,
tone and dry, somehow makes a projection to the viewer which makes him
respond with an special attraction to the image that is before his eyes so
as to feel the full power of that which has been created by the virtuosity
of the artist hand.
Regards,
Alejandro López de Haro
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: The future of the handmade print?
> Take the discussion away from photography for a moment.
>
> It the not too distant future one is going to be able to take a score and
> play it through a virtual violin. Lets suppose one can adjust all the
> nuances and such by digitally tweaking the output. Say that it could not
be
> distinguished by the ear from Issac Stern.
>
> Suppose one could digitally exactly* reproduce in paint the color and
> surface texture any great piece of art, Van Goghs irises for instance.
>
> I will find the "real" Isaac Stern (now recently passed) concert more
> satisfying and the original Van Goghs equally so. Do we not marvel at the
> fact that a human can do that.
>
> The fact that Van Gogh painted by hand and not by pushing a button makes
it
> much more satisfying for me, even if he had incorporated his vision
somehow
> via a computer and then outputted it. The fact is that much more of the
> physical Vincent was involved other than just the right index finger
> pushing a button.
>
> Photography is an 19th Century process more in tune with the
> Twentieth. "Push the button and we'll do the rest" says Victorian Kodak.
>
> Sorry Big Yeller, I want to do the rest.
>
> I want to buy work that represents both the art and craft of its producer.
>
> --Dick Sullivan
>
> * note how the words "digitally" and "exactly" seem redundant in that
sentence!
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST