Thank you so much.
>important to me, but not to everyone who sees my work.
As I said, the image using a particular methodoligy to create it (whatever the medium) is in my opinion inseperable from that image. Each
method has its own inherent characteristics does it not?
>Also, in my VERY humble opinion, a technically great alt print of an
A person can't be VERY humble any more than a female can be slightly PREGNANT.
>aesthetically GREAT image is better than a technically great alt print
>of an aesthetically BAD image any day of the week.
Of course - but this is subjective.
>In that respect,process isn't THE single most important thing.
I didn't say it was.
>my painter friends don't
>explain the chemical composition of their paints (or explain the oil vs.
>acrylic debates) when they show their work to non-painters.
Because they assume ignorance in a non-painter?
> it just goes on the label as a one word description above the price.
The materials they choose _define_ the
>appearance of their work, but it's not they way they introduce it, and
>it's not the way the work is judged.
If That's the case, how do you explain this quote from the original posting?
"The
response I got (from the gallery) was approximately as follows: he didn't see any added value
in doing 19th century processes in the 21st century. They are obsolete. He
didn't see any 'author's statement' in photographing industrial architecture
because this topic was fully exhausted in the 70s and 80s. On top of that,
what on earth is the reason to combine old processes with industrial
architecture. Etc, etc..."
>It _is_ possible to like (or love!) photos without knowing WITH
>CERTAINTY which process was used to print it.
>
Yes of course.
Regards,
David H
---- Message sent via Totalise Webmail - http://www.totalise.co.uk Up to 2Mb Broadband now from just £11.99 a month
Received on Tue Feb 14 09:00:28 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/13/06-10:42:57 AM Z CST