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

Pam wrote:

> For anyone to say that everyone must do as they do to be branded
>with the art label is absurd.
>
>Pam

Did someone say that during this exchange? If so I sure missed it.

What I have said is that there are types of photography where
sharpness itself is highly valued, as are a number of other formal
values. Straight photography, as described by Strand, would be one
these types of photography. Industrial and/or scientific work would
be others.

Other kinds of work start with different premises and have different
objectives. Pinhole photography, gum bichromate, work with Holga
cameras, conceptual photography, etc. I certainly would not say that
these approaches are any less valid than straight photography, though
I doubt that any of use would embrace all of them. How many on this
list, for example, appreciate the work of Cindy Sherman?

It appears to me that the only person who has tried to narrow the
range of acceptable work is Judy, through her suggestion that those
who are interested in sharpness and/or archival issues lack
confidence in their work. Which implies that only those who avoid
sharpness and concern with archival issues have any right to consider
themselves confident artists.

Sandy

>
>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 10:12:26 2004