Digital BW, The Print

At 11:54 AM 6/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>There was an interesting article in the New York Times that I thought others
>in this group might like to read.  While it might seem slightly off topic at
>a first glance of the title, I think it has relevance considering our
>ongoing discussions concerning quadtone acceptance in galleries, "is it
>really a 'carbon pigment print," etc.
>
>I have copied the text at the end of this message and I have copied the text
>at the end of this message:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/arts/design/16KIMM.html?8hpib
>
>Doug
>


Doug,

Thanks for the article.  The public naivete regarding artist's methods is
amazing to me.  It's the 21'st Century and such a dead issue gets space in
the Times??? Sheesh!! We photographers know that there has always been a
symbiotic relationship between photography and painting.  Making pictures
for painters was Atget's livelihood. To choose not to use photographs as
Philip Pearlstein apparently has is an aesthetic choice not an ethical or
symbolic choice as some would have it. I'm a big fan of his work and see the
influence of photography in it. How could any painting NOT be influenced by
photography? I'm looking forward to seeing Richter in Chicago at the end of
this month. The landscapes in his book look great to me - I hope the real
paintings do too. 

AZ




Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround