Re: wet plate

Claude Seymour (cseymour@cap.gwu.edu)
Wed, 27 Apr 1994 10:44:53 -0400 (EDT)

Art is about process. I daresay you could make a fine simulacrum of almost
any process by another method but it wouldn't be the same thing because
the process was different. Different variables would push your vision in
another direction.

Claude Seymour

On Wed, 27 Apr 1994 gsnowman@aol.com wrote:

> Claude Seymour writes:
>
> > ATTENTION! This is not a flame.
>
> Neither is this. (Although I may be heading down a track that is of interest
> to nobody but myself.) I'm not trying to attack the way you make pictures,
> but I would like to understand it a little more.
>
> > 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:
>
> I don't think it's a dumb question. I've never tried wet plate, but it seems
> obvious that it's a big hassle. I assume that you feel the end results
> justify the hassle. (Otherwise, you probably wouldn't do it.) I think there
> are two legitimate questions that can be asked. (1) What are the unique
> technical characteristics of wet plate. In other words, you obviously like
> the image. Can you put into words what you like about it? (I realize there
> are some major problems associated with discussing the artistic side of
> photography in a medium dominated by text.) (2) What are the artistic
> motivations that lead you to use wet plate as opposed to some other medium?
>
> (1) and (2) are in some ways closely related questions, but they are
> different. (1) is a technician type question. (2) is an artist question.
>
> You said:
>
> > (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.
>
> Reasons (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) and (7) are reasons that, for me, would quickly
> lose their potency. The history lesson, for example, seems like a really good
> reason for doing this once or twice, but not a reason to select it as a
> primary artistic medium. However, reason (2) seems to me quite compelling.
> However, it obviously begs the question "What appeals to you as an artist
> about this particular visual syntax?" Maybe that's what Mr Wang means by:
>
> >> what is to be gained from wet plate, other than a historical lesson?
>
> If so, that seems like a really good question to ask about any photographic
> or artistic process.
>
> One final question: This area of inquiry is a little outside the more techy
> stuff that tends to dominate this list. Are there others interested in these
> kinds of questions? If the answer is no, I promise to shut up and stop
> hassling you, gentle reader.
>
> Geoff Snowman