Re: "Antiquarian Avant Garde" and Nostalgia and spleening my vent

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

> > One thing that really pissed me off about this book (and alot of alt work
> > these days) is how they glorify the rough edges and "mistakes" of alot of
> > early processes. No wet plate worker worth his salts would have shown a
> > plate with the rough edges and blemishes that so many present day
> > practitioners seek.  I don't understand why the "mistakes" have become the
> > prevailing aesthetic. The processes are so beautiful on their own. Also,
> why
> > do so many wet plate workers shoot the exact same subject matter that
> > photographers did in the 1800's. I saw some Spagnoli dags that were taken
> in
> > NYC recently. Those were beautiful. Do we really need another wetplate of
> an
> > antique tea kettle on the porch of a log cabin?

When I was in art school a gazillion years ago, the mantra was "form
follows function," which at the time meant that the work should show its
function in its form.... That is, don't try to make a radiator look like
the Venus de Milo.

I could as well ask, why do certain photographers feel the need to hide,
or manicure the form of their process, to make a photograph look as if it
were made by a machine?  I find what you seem to consider "perfect" in
this respect to be hard and mechanical looking, while the "artifacts" of
*process* are beautiful in themselves.

So when you say "the processes are so beautiful on their own" I would
agree, but not with your interpretation, which looks from here like
photography in DENIAL of its process !!!

I hasten to add that a lot of what "they" taught us in school has
vaporized over the years, or we vaporized it after a long struggle, like
quitting smoking.  But the notion of "truth to materials" or "voice" of
the process, or trace of the hand, or honest artifact, or any of the many
ways it can be described, is apt, current, and important.  Think for
instance of a painting with every mark of the brush removed. That was the
hallmark of the 18th or whatever century, but if someone jumped up and
down today on a painting for showing the signs of its making (drips,
strokes, impasto, etc.), we'd become.... what was that phrase ... rude and
confrontational?

I could also ask, do we really need another literal, tight rendering of
NYC buildings even if its in the vaunted daguerreotype?  I haven't seen
those dags, but except for the medium, is it anything we don't know?
And if you're going to explain that it's the *medium* that makes them
different.... watch out. You've just sort of denied that.

best,

Judy