From: Sandy King (sanking@CLEMSON.EDU)
Date: 03/11/02-11:49:17 AM Z
Alejandro wrote:
>
>I know it is an endless discussion to argue about Art and what is art and
>what isn't. But at the end it got to do about what the public likes and
>finally what are they willing to pay for it. From this perspective I have a
>question to ask you: If you have $100.000 and you must spend it on either a
>Limited Edition 2/5 "extravagance*" brush-out platinum print or a Limited
>Edition 2/5 computer print both made by Hiroshi Sugimoto, as an example:
>Which one would you buy?
If you are putting up the money and there are no consequences to the
purchase I would buy the print that pleased me most, which might be
either for its content or for its print syntax.
On the other hand, in spending my own money I would personally only
pay $100,000 for a print for investment purposes. Since both images
are limited edition prints, 2/5, I would require a lot more
information to know which of the two might be the better investment.
Sandy King
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 4:48 PM
>Subject: Re: The future of the handmade print?
>
>
>Alejandro López de Haro wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>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.
>
>snip, snip
>
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
>The idea you express are virtually identical to the aesthetic
>ideology espoused by the Pictorialists over a century ago,
>specifically, only photographs that show hand work or intervention by
>the photographers could be considered works of art. That idea, then
>as now, is too narrowly construed. So too was the opposing modernist
>view that photographs should only be made on glossy silver gelatin
>papers.
>
>One of the most outstanding photographers of the pictorial school in
>Spain, Migue Goicochea (died Pamplona in 1983) made in 1928 a
>statement about processes that I consider to be equally valid today.
>My translation of the original statement that appeared in Spanish in
>the magazine Foto follows.
>
>"Let's talk about processes. I am convinced that they all have the
>potential to produce art. If Robert Demachy were to read this he
>might be incensed, since he was of the opinion that only the pigment
>processes are capable of giving artistic results, and indeed, only a
>few of these. But we should not be so intransigent in this matter.
>Exclusiveness blinds up and prevents a proper appreciation of many
>worthy things."
>
>Regards,
>
>Sandy King
>
>
>
>
>--
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST