Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> One last thought on the "hand pulled" issue. Everyone should 
remember 
> that there have been, and are, many great and successful 
> photographers who never develop their own film much less get 
their 
> fingers wet making a print.


Martin,

I'm with Harvey here; a level-headed thorough post. Thank you.

Given, I am so out of my area about all these gallery issues. I 
guess the hand-pulled analogy that you quote relates to the 
whole mystique of a certain artist, and that relates to the PRICE 
of his work?

(We recently had that traveling Weegee show here in Nashville. 
There were hundreds, literally hundreds, of prints in the show. 
As I walked through the room, I was shocked that these were 
being shown in a museum, in terms of their permanence 
issues. Many were crumpled-edged, stained, faded prints. I 
certainly hope people were not buying similar prints for 
investment, because from what I know of a newspaper 
darkroom 
from those times, the PermaWash/double-fixer factor was pretty 
laughable I'd say. It was 
soup-it-in-the-Dektol-whoosh-it-through-the-stop-and-wiggle-it-i
n-the-fixer, all in record time, when you're on deadline, and then 
another paper comes out tomorrow, so archival means "one 
day".)

In terms of mystique, I was viewing some of the beautiful prints 
of one of the more successful local art photographers recently. 
The gallery owner mentioned, with this certain tone, "Yes, he 
rides a MOTORCYCLE; that's how he gets these pictures". It did 
have some validity to me, in that the scenes were always these 
obscure, rural, out of the way places. But at the same time, I did 
snicker a bit at the tone in her voice when she told me that. I left 
the gallery thinking, "Damn -- I need a motorcycle! Yeah, that's it 
-- a motorcycle! That's what missing from my pictures - a 
motorcycle! That's what would put me on the map - a motorcycle! 
Yeah, that'll be my new schtick - a motorcycle". 

The motorcycle thing was that guy's "branding". Soon, (already), 
everybody will be known by two or three words, ie. "Oh yeah, he's 
that guy that does ____ ____ ____". If you can't fill in those 
blanks within three seconds, then you haven't arrived on the 
scene yet. You're still under the radar scope.

------

But on the other hand, to me, the whole inkjet-shame issue all 
relates to Print Permanence. Isn't it just that simple? Doesn't it 
simply come down to investment confidence? It's not that inkjet 
printing, in-and-of-itself, is a shady process. It's just that there is 
a cultural, societal belief (mostly not unfounded), that inkjet prints 
have permanence issues. Who wants to risk buying something 
that's going to fade in ten years, so that that original purchaser 
can't resell it and make money? 

----

This post doesn't really nail what I 'm trying to say, but I just got 
up, and it's early, and I'm sitting here with Jon Cone in our 
underwear, outside of Cleveland, drinking coffee and scratching 
ourselves. I'll be awake later. Sorry.