From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/01/03-01:47:17 PM Z
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Sandy King wrote:
> As for your take on art consumers, I humbly disagree. In my opinion
> the great majority of Pt/Pd prints sold in the $500 range are sold
> primarily *because they are Pt/Pd print." Obviously subject content
> is highly important because most people buying in that price range do
> so for decorative reasons, but I find the notion that there is not a
> process appeal for pt/pd print apart from subject content, and apart
> from the reputation of the artist, disingenuous. Beyond $1k artist
> reputation becomes a lot more important than either image content or
> process.
>
Most casual photo purchasers probably never heard of kallitype, and even
the "savvy" ones would probably confuse it with calotype.... including the
dealers. (If they actually know the difference they're probably
photographers or historians and not in the market.) In any event, you
might finesse the point by doing what the ancients apparently did... I
doubt there is a non-destructive test to distinguish between the pd print
& pd-toned kalli.... there may not even be a "destructive" test (???).
Which is to say, the medium is what you say it is.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:08:59 PM Z CST