If you don't mind, I think it is an interesting take off point for
a discussion of why one works with alternative processes.
>
> I'm really suprised that someone (and in an art department!) on this
> mailing list would ask this question. I will, however, give a few of my
> own personal reasons:
>
> (1) Because I can.
>
> (2) A different visual syntax.
>
> (3) It's a challenge.
>
> (4) I don't mind answering the question, "Are you taking a picture?".
>
> (5) Knowing my roots.
>
> (6) The history lesson.
>
> (7) Preparing for the day when digital photography will force me to make my
> own materials.
>
> I could go on, but I hope Mr. Wang (or anyone else) now understands some of
> my motives. I'm sure others on this list can come up with more reasons and
> express them better than me (or is it I).
I can only speak for myself, but as a refugee from an art department
(more than one, actually) the only valid "artistic" reason is #2. The
others have perhaps some personal growth or hobby related issues
involved with them that might show up in finished work, but aren't in
and of themselves reasons. (As for #7, there are still a lot of
printmakers out there working with limestone.)
In deconstructing reason #2 there are other ways to achieve the visual
syntax of a wet plate negative. For example, the blue sensitivity of
the wet plate image can be imitated by using a fairly sharp cutting
blue filter or by using a blue sensitive film (Kodak Commercial film, I
think, is both blue sensitive and slow). After that, the only other
syntactical element common to wet plate negatives would be the tendency
for uneveness and splotchy coating. You could argue that this was a
flaw which the best workers of the wet-plate era avoided. So perhaps
this element wouldn't count, or you could achieve similar results by
abrading your negatives in some way.
Counter balance that to the dangers of working with wet colloidion
emulsions. I wouldn't want to encourage a student to work with these
materials if the only benefit to their art was the ability to explore a
different visual syntax. If for no other reasons than liability, I'd
have them working with Photoshop instead.
So, what is the benefit of alternative processes? I do think that it is
the chance to explore the syntax that these processes either force on
our images or allow us to incorporate into our images. Often the most
interesting part of this is to see the differences between the more
consensual photographic syntax (say, Tri-X film printed on glossy
paper) and the visual elements of the alternative process - i.e. how the
process has changed our perceptions. However, when I pick a process to
work with it is always with images in mind rather than with the idea of
being challenged by the technique.
Anyone want to continue this?
Carson Graves
carson@ileaf.com
>
> Claude Seymour
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Apr 1994, Sam Wang wrote:
>
> > With the ready availability of Ilford films in 12x20 and 7x17 sizes,
> > what is to be gained from wet plate, other than a historical lesson?
> >
> > BTW, if anyone needs 12x20 or 7x17 holders, let me know.
> > --
> > Sam Wang stmwang@hubcap.clemson.edu 803/656-3924voice 656-0204fax
> > Art Dept., Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0509
>
>
>
>