From: Phillip Murphy (pmurf@bellsouth.net)
Date: 03/30/03-04:07:35 PM Z
I agree with you Sandy, it is disconcerting to say the least.
If a gallery buys into this thinking then one could layer a coating
of hard gelatin over a pigment inkjet print and call it a Tri-Colour Carbon Print !
-Phillip
Sandy King wrote:
> Phillip wrote:
>
> >This somewhat reminds me of the name game that's played with the Daguerreotype
> >in many antique stores these days. Any Tintype or Ambrotype in a case has
> >suddenly become a Daguerreotype!
> >
> >-Phillip
>
> However, at least there is a point because labeling these processes
> as daguerreotype is a name game that serves to enhance the status of
> the tintype or abrotype. But it makes no sense to call a print made
> by the carbon process a carbro since in the end they are both pigment
> transfer images and from a historical perspective one does not have
> more prestige than the other, in my opinion. In other words, it
> primarily the process by which they are made that differentiates a
> carbon print from a carbro.
>
> Sandy King
>
> >
> >Sandy King wrote:
> >
> >> Judy Seigel wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Stewart prints aren't carbro -- I'd trust Tod Gangler's verdict that
> >> >they're carbon. But there seems to be much available misinformation,
> >> >either here or elsewhere. Went back to the gallery this PM, to get another
> >> >look, &, having provoked husband's curiosity with my enthusiasm, let him
> >> >have a look. Told the dealer that the all-knowing "list" said not carbro,
> >> >he insisted was carbro because Aniere told him that the term carbon was
> >> >only for black.
> >>
> >> I wonder how one could get to the root of this misinformation. Surely
> >> Aniere would not have told the dealer that "carbon was only for
> >> black." I mean, how is possible that a printer of his skills could
> >> be so misinformed about such a basic issue. He would almost certainly
> >> have to know that the hybrid nature of carbro is in the very name,
> >> i.e. car (carbon) + bro (bromide). So if he really chose to call his
> >> carbon prints carbro, knowing that they are not, does not that
> >> constitute a significant misrepresentation of his work? If the
> >> intent, as Tod suggests, was to call some attention to the prints
> >> because he felt that some people would be familiar with the term
> >> carbro he may have succeeded, but in the end it may turn out that the
> >> attention they are given focuses more on the misrepresentation.
> >>
> >> Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:26 PM Z CST