Digital BW, The Print

[Doug said:]
>How are people labeling their prints that they exhibit in shows, in
>galleries, and that get sold?  Traditional black and white images have been
>labeled as GSP or gelatin silver prints for years which helps explain the
>underlying process.  What should we call our archival quadtone/hextone
>prints that use the third party carbon pigment inks?  "Carbon pigment
>prints" or what?  I believe our efforts deserve distinction from run of the
>mill un-archival inkjet prints.  Ideas?
>

Doug,

I would suggest:

           Carbon pigment print on paper

           Pigment print on paper

           Carbon print on paper

On that subject, here is a post I did earlyer today on the 
"digital-fineart" list:
=============
Dear Bert:

I can appreciate that your gallery owner's desire to define your 
genre is well founded and reflects the uneasiness that currently 
pervades the art world regarding computer produced art. This is not a 
new phenomena and will probably take scores of years to dissipate. 
In the mean time, I think that using a simple terminology to identify 
digital work (using linguistic patterns similar to that of more 
traditional art) is the best approach to attain recognition.

Hundreds of "genre" of paintings have been produced over the 
centuries; yet they are nearly all identified under a simple label 
like ("Cave  painting" ... "Oil (or acrylic) on canvas (board, 
etc.)". These names usefully describe the artwork itself, not the 
tools or the technique the artist used.

What you are creating are "Pigment (or dye) print on paper". 
Incidentally, I would also avoid using the faddish "giclee" term 
which, by way of comparison, is like saying "brushed oil" or 
"spatuled acrylic" which are references to tools or technique as 
opposed to the resulting work.

If a more precise description of your work is needed, it belongs in 
an elegant sentence or paragraph. Inventing individual words or names 
for various combinations and permutations of discipline, technique 
and tools would, in my opinion, rapidly result in far too many 
individual and mostly incomprehensible names for all but a small "in" 
crowd.

Regards and best of luck with your creative use of computers.

Jean-Michel Paris