Digital BW, The Print

Steadman Uhlich wrote:

> <snip>I would not put Inkjet on my art description (and I don't care what the museums are doing...they don't
> create art...they store it.

So are you saying that you are using your labels to market, or to inform? (Museums use them to inform)

<snip>

> Finally, in contrast to some digital printers (people that is) I would not use the term "Inkjet" or "Inkjet
> Print" anymore than I would describe a sculpture as:
>
>                    "Chisel, marble statue"
>
> Or a silver or platinum print as a:
>
>          "Beseler Enlarger, Silver Gelatin Print"
>
> Nor would I describe a painting on canvas as:
>
>           "Pigs Bristle Bright Brush, oil on canvas"
>
> What's the "tool" got to do with it?
> (Said to the back beat score of a certain Tina Turner song.)

'Inkjet printing/printer'....It's both a tool *and* a process

> In my opinion, it is the materials used and those alone that warrant description.  The "process" or tools
> have nothing to do with it.  In that frame of mind I would say describe my print as a "Carbon Pigment
> Print."

But what kind of print is that?....An etching, a silk-screen, a gravure......An inkjet print?

> Of course fine art prints may be admired because they are "silver point" or "etching" or "rotogravure" or
> what not.  That is the decision to showcase or market the method, not the materials.  In that case I would
> call my print a "Carbon Pigment Piezograph."

And why do museums 'market' a method?  The point is to educate and inform the viewer, by not stating the
process, you are obfuscating the helpful information.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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