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

In a message dated 02/02/04 08:29:31 GMT Standard Time, jseigel@panix.com
writes:
Actually, Sandy King wrote:-

> Which implies that only those who avoid
> > sharpness and concern with archival issues have any right to consider
> > themselves confident artists.

Hi Gang, Hoping this has some relevance to the current topic.
At age sixteen,using a cardboard loo roll tube attatched to my early simple
Zenith - C reflex camera ( which BTW was copied from discontinued Leica project
plans bought by the Russian makers) with a 10 cents single element 150mm
lens stuck in the end, I made a 35mm negative from Kew bridge on the river
Thames. Two kids were fishing from a little island to the right of the composition
and down stream a monumental railway bridge dominated the picture. I had not
noticed these kids fishing until I enlarged to 16" X 20" using a 3" focus
jewellers magnifying loupe (glass) in conjunction with a large instant coffee tin
(I remember it was Maxwell House) and a 150 Watt light bulb. The print was on
outdated govt. surplus document bromide paper developed in some brew from a
similar source costing one dollar for fifty gallons (dry chemicals). Wow ! !
Was it fuzzy and unsharp ! ! ??? I loved this picture, but because of the
general influence and view at that time that only sharp prints were good
photography, and my lack of confidence as an artist, it was binned. I have
regretted that action for fifty years and plan, now, to re shoot the scene enlisting
the help of my great grand children to pose with fishing rods. Hopefully, the
rail bridge and island are still there.

    Was this whole scenario Art or bad photography? Who really cares? I
guess someone does. I have come to focus in my later years that photography is
the tool of Art and that Art is most significantly the therapy of the
community. The tool is not art.
                     Fade out to violins.........John- Photographist - London
Received on Mon Feb 2 05:05:53 2004