RE: authenticity

Marie,
 
Are you inferring that because the general populous now makes and,
consequently, basically understands how an inkjet print is made that an
inkjet print is easier to appreciate than a print that is not made in this
fashion? That's interesting. See below:
 
[I think that knowing how something is made (or having a clue or two) is a
large part of the experience of being in front of an object, be it a chair
or a photo/print. "Ya know"? ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Marie Wohadlo [mailto:mwohadlo@press.uchicago.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 12:57 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: authenticity

My personal take on the 'authenticity' thang is somewhat (only somewhat,
don't be alarmed here) based on Marx's determination that we are alienated
from our means of production. (Also related to tourism, I believe, but
that's another stoyry.) Now I don't consider myself an extreme
earthy-crunchy person, but we KNOW where the Stickley wood came from, and
something about power and hand tools, but how many of us (those who don't
push the "inject" button on the injection mold machine) know where that
generic substance we call PLASTIC comes from. Yes, we know it's a chemical,
but how much more than that do we commonly know? I think that knowing how
something is made (or having a clue or two) is a large part of the
experience of being in front of an object, be it a chair or a photo/print.
"Ya know"?
--Marie

way that we tend to view a Stickley chair as somehow more authentic than an
injection molded plastic jobbie. They both hold your butt about 2-1/2 feet
in the air, but many people just think of the Stickley chair as something
authentic and permanent versus the transient, impermanent and disposable
plastic version. I guess ugly, easy and cheap gets trumped by beauty any
time.

Clay
Received on Tue Feb 22 12:44:57 2005