Another footnote to my earlier thoughts:
My comment below is on a somewhat different level than other comments
that have been made in this thread about technique. While I believe, as
I said, that collectors of photographs care what the printing process
is, I agree heartily that no one cares about the details: what brush,
what gum, what lens, what film, all that lower-level stuff.
kt
Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> I also wanted to say something about the idea that to a viewer/buyer of
> art, the technique is irrelevant. I think this is surely true of
> painting, but less true of photography and especially less true of
> alternative photographic processes. If you think serious photography
> collectors buy platinum prints only because of the picture, and that a
> digital print of the same image would suit them as well, I suspect you
> don't understand the mentality of the typical collector of photographs.
> By the same token, if I thought that people bought my work only because
> they like the images, I would be deluding myself. They are also drawn to
> the idea, the mystique if you will, of the gum printing process.
Received on Wed Jan 5 12:50:02 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:07 AM Z CST