Digital BW, The Print

lyonscox@... wrote:

> Big snip>

> Is it more important that it be archival than whether the image is
> good?  Seems if you make a great image, someone will figure out how
> to care for it.  No need to stop tinkering, just remember why you are
> tinkering - to achieve that artistic vision I presume.
>
> I personally need to raise my head when I tinker too much, means I'm
> avoiding making something that I will have to evaluate with no one
> else to fault than myself.
>
> Cleavis in AZ.

So when is it ok to worry about how long things last?  Is a dye print, that fades in a couple of weeks in
indirect natural light acceptable?

I have seen beautiful works of art from the 60's self destruct to the point of becoming conceptual art in
under 20 years.  Is that ok?...I suppose it depends on the 'intent' of the artist.

The problems with non archival materials really accelerated during the 20th Century.  You referred to some
drawings by Van Gough that had changed color over time, which were still beautiful...But if you look at why he
did not use archival technique oe ephemeral materials), I think you will find that these drawings were
probably  studies for a 'final' piece of art.  Most of the 'old masters' (and I include the masters of
impressionism, among others, here as well) were very aware of archival process (although they might have used
other words), and were sure to follow it.  that was why they were apprentices *first*.  To learn proper
technique.

I might add, that there might have been other great artists who did not follow these archival procedures, but
we would not know of them because their artworks have long since self destructed and disappeared on their
own..

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]