Re: The value of the handmade

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Richard Sullivan wrote:
> ... I ask why it cost $3000.00. Durability, accuracy,
> get thrown in. I then point out that I have a Timex Radio watch on that costs
> $39.00 and keeps constant time to the 100th of a second by logging into the
> atomic clock in Fort Collins Colorado. I then toss it on the floor. In just
> about every quality one can ascribe to a watch the Timex wins but no one will
> either toss their Rolex on the floor or trade me for for the Timex. The Rolex
> has craft value. It is expensive to make and takes a good deal of hand skills
> in it's manufacture.

Permit me to suggest that you omit the major major MAJOR appeal of Rolex
-- its status value. Certainly most of what I've seen, read and heard on
the topic suggests that.

And permit me to observe that, in my own experience, the Timex or
equivalent is better. When my daughter graduated from college we gave her
a gold watch. Within two years it broke down and the cost to fix more than
the original. At the same time I bought myself a Gruen at Bloomingdales
for $62. That was more years ago than I care to mention, but that watch,
many batteries and leather bands later, still keeps perfect time.

Permit me also to mention that this discussion, according to the currently
proposed rules for the alt-photo list, is OFF TOPIC ! And yet, judging by
the messages arriving while I write, it's stirring interest, getting
responses.

Which is to say, lots of luck guys, with formulating, defining, following
and policing those rules. If enforced, folks will unenforce them when
there's a by-the-way that needs mention. When not enforced, that might be
the time for a listminder to gently intervene -- that is, if the thing
goes on so long it's a nuisance. Otherwise, it's my sense (and I've said
this before) that such personal exchanges enhance and personalize the
list, a break from formulas and techno-speak.

I recall also that attempts to define "alt photo" failed soundly when
tried early on. Given the givens I suspect such rules would be even
harder to come by today. Surely nobody without an abiding interest is
going to stick around for endless discussions of boiling gelatin or the
subtleties of clearing baths. Meaning, the field will probably be
sufficiently self defining -- as it has been.

There's also the point that some folks don't want to deal with another
list for, say, small digital questions that are readily answered here. And
the answers do add to the sum total of list knowledge.

PS. I myself find the Rolex hideous -- that metal band in itself deserving
some kind of booby prize. Which just goes to show (if we didn't already
understand) the power of money in "beauty" and that "handmade" can be
ugly, too.

Judy

A digitally >printed< image is in effect the Timex of
> the print world. A fine handmade print is the Rolex.
>
> As an aside it was a big issue that Bill Clinton was wearing a Timex at his
> '92 inaugural. Horrors!
>
> Just some ideas.
>
> --Dick Sullivan
>
>
>
>
> At 06:41 AM 3/15/2005, you wrote:
>> >>> schrammrus@hotmail.com 03/15/05 12:08 AM >>>
>>
>> >>...that digital imaging is a new form of alternative process
>> photography...
>>
>> Bob Schramm<<
>>
>>
>>
>> I take issue with that terminology and would hate to see this list
>> become overwhelmed by discussions of digital capture technologies and
>> output devices. As marvelous as digital cameras, scanners, printers and
>> inkjet prints are, the latter are not true photographic prints formed by
>> the direct action of light but a rather different beast. There are
>> other more appropriate forums for digital discourse related to capture
>> and output IMO.
>>
>> Currently, when it comes to digital technologies, the list has confined
>> itself largely to discussions of how to make a digital negative to be
>> utilized in making an alternative process photographic print. I think
>> that is as it should be since the final outcome from that process and
>> light attenuator is an actual photograph.
>>
>> Joe
>
Received on Tue Mar 15 13:40:45 2005