From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 01/05/03-08:42:08 AM Z
>
> In fact I find it one of the most dynamic, perplexing and intriguing
> issues in the visual arts.... the transmogrification of an image by its
> color gamut. Although a related question is the difference in "aura"
> between reproduction and original. I do NOT always find more power in the
> original, incidentally. Sometimes having seen something reproduced,
> small, I rush madly to see the ding an sich, which can turn out to be kind
> of inert. I think maybe blue smoke & mirrors can occur on one side or the
> other.
This is so, but the question of scale is just as interesting. I can't stand
it when an art book with nice reproductions fails to cite the dimensions of
a painting (they never fail to mention what institution owns it, which seems
an odd set of priorities). And how many juried art shows have you gone to
and seen a lot of pictures that "looked really good as slides"? That's what
the jury saw, slides, and generations of art students have now been taught
to make work that looks good as slides. Often the actual work doesn't hold
up.
Way back in the 1980's a magazine client spent about a year in a transition
period as 4/C process printing plummeted in price because of the new scanner
separation technology. Along with interesting feature articles, I made reams
of how-to-do-it pictures for the monthly automotive, house-repair, garden,
etc, etc, columns. During this period, I didn't know at the time of the
shoot whether the specific pieces would be reproduced in color or b&w
halftone. It was decided at the last minute in post-production. That, I
assure you, was a complication. It's hard enough to make a clear
illustration of just how to put the special wrench on the oil filter and
have everything show clearly under the car's engine compartment in *either*
b&w or color, but both? What a relief when things went to 4/C clear through.
So much easier to illustrate with color.
> Katherine's issue as I recall wasn't black & white versus color so much
> as a rather ho hum (apparently) black and white repro versus the real color of
> her originals....
I think the trick here can be to recognise the difference in media. If an
illustration in the paper would be desireable, supply the paper with a
reproducable print/file. Hand them a delicate gum print (aside from the risk
of damage) and they'll produce a terrible piece of mush, or more likely
reproduce a work from another artist in another show. Give them a nice
snappy b&w and it won't, of course, give an accurate portrayal of the
delicate original print, but it just might be a good strong image that
brings people into the show where they can be pleasantly surprised by the
subtlety of the originals. When I have a show I (or the galleries) send out
press releases with strong, snappy inkjet knockoffs from my Pd prints and
I'm delighted when the papers put a murky repro of my picture across a third
of the arts-news page.
---Carl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST