Re: And how sharp I am was/Re: Temperaprint & Gum

Judy, I don't see how anyone here seriously could think otherwise, could
seriously disagree with you. It would be analogous to saying that
because paint can be used to portray very close to reality, to do
otherwise would be ridiculous, a travesty; therefore negating
impressionism, abstract expressionism, cubism, etc. Or the converse.
Beautiful, important works can be done with any medium; and that
anything that can be done within a medium is at least a valid (not
necessarily good or art or interesting) point of view by the person
doing it. For anyone to say that everyone must do as they do to be
branded with the art label is absurd.

Pam

Judy Seigel wrote:

> ...
>
>But it seems I can't mention my sense that sharpness is in some quarters a
>fetish and often past the point of diminishing returns, without being told
>I don't like sharp photographs and can't do sharp. Or that I don't think
>good photographs are or should be sharp. Or in Shannon's words, either do
>or just prefer (or both) "poorly crafted fuzzy photographs"!!!
>(Shannon,that's shameful/shameless!)
>
>Ditto for archival. A lot of work is utterly incredibly miraculously
>archival that could just as well be biodegradable. In fact the value of
>art is often enhanced by its rarity. There are so many perfectly
>incredibly miraculously archival platinum prints today, they'll be a glut
>on the market. But even a so so vintage uranium print would probably be
>prized. Meanwhile, for the record, I try to be archival within reason (&
>gum is more archival than platinum). So far it seems to be working.
>...
>
>
>They're having an "Old is New Again: Alternative Processes" event, with a
>pinhole workshop run by Diana Bloomfield. It's $45, Saturday Aril 24th...
>you might like it. But don't apply your one-word definition of
>poorlycraftedfuzzy there -- they'll think you're, um, ossified.. Diana's
>prints by the way are pinhole, cyanotype over platinum. The one on the
>face of the announcement, of her daughter Annalee, is stunning. Not
>fuzzy, tho probably slightly soft, and exquisitely crafted.
>
>Judy
>
>
>
Received on Sun Feb 1 08:50:10 2004