Digital BW, The Print

> I can! I buy art that is clearly the work of a craftsman. I wouldn't dream
> of wasting a penny (or cent) on so-called art that is the work of people
who
> simply throw a tin of paint all over a canvas and proclaim it is 'art'.
Call
> me oldfashioned if you like, even if I do manipulate my pictures in PS to
> improve their 'artistic' qualities (unless I occasionally take the perfect
> picture). Not bothered about the 'sweat equity', just the experience,
skill,
> and imagination combined.

Jackson Pollock is one who "splashed" paint over a canvas. You may or may
not like his work, but he's regarded as one of the more important painters
of the last century. Some of his paintings took hours to produce, rather the
than days or weeks or months of other traditional works. Did that lessen the
value of his work? Not in the least. I doubt any person or gallery that was
able to acquire one of his works cared the least how long Pollock to paint
it. Like you say, it's the skill, imagination, and experience combined.

I once saw a Robert Frank show. I couldn't believe how crappy the prints
were. Dust specks, signs of blotchy, uneven processing, flat contrast, etc..
No pure whites or blacks (sorry Jerry). The show was very well reviewed, and
no one (other than another photographer I was with) really cared about the
print quality.