>One thing that has always puzzled me with the question of archival
quality,
>and maybe some of you have clearer thoughts on it: What is the point
of
>creating art (or collecting art) if you have to "keep them cool, dry
and in
>the dark if you want them to last."? Is it as simple as the
difference
>between being pleased because you "have them" and being pleased
because you
>can "enjoy them"? It seems to me that art, which has by the nature of
its
>process a short lifespan out of the cool, dry dark, this art would
therefore
>be all the more precious, could be all the more enjoyable _because_ it
has
>this short lifespan.
>
>Harriet Thompson
>
There's something to that, IMHO. Some forms of art - sand painting,
floral arranging, etc. where the short life span is part of the
artistic experience. And with photography, even the cool dry place
can't work forever - recently I opened the carton (which had been
stored in a variety of cool dry places over the years) and looked at
slides I'd taken during my high school and college days. Nearly all
had gone reddish. Nothing is forever. If it were, it would have no
value.
Gini