Digital BW, The Print

Steve, There are many modern artist that are making statements with "stuff".
They either have no knowledge or care as to the lasting quality of the
material used to make the statement but rather their statement is made in
the here and now. There are many other artists that are hoping that their
statements last and indeed take great care in making sure that they do. Is
the statement itself the message, is the message a lasting statement? Oh,
the rub of art. Are we so pretentious that we expect our moments of
reflection to stand the test of time? Or are we all just trying to make a
buck and get our 10 minutes in the sun? 

 

I saw the article as a tongue in cheek look at modern art, not so much a
statement on the world of fine art.  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Gledhill
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:37 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] A Load of Rot ... !

 

Tom,
Apologies for slow response here. I don't understand your 'one 
clarification'. Perhaps you didn't actually follow and read the link. 
My points are simple:

The article referred to in the link below is about modern artwork 
rotting and disintegrating in a very short timescale - hence the subject 
line of the post which is also the title of the article in the Telegraph.
I'm sure many on this list have many reasons for being here, but my 
reference was to artwork - the subject of the link.

I'm sorry not to have included reference to everyone's interests in my 
short post but I think it wasn't necessary as again the reference was 
specifically meant to be to artwork.

I suspect you may have though that I was deriding the attention we pay 
to longevity of our work (art or family or ...). But I wasn't - on the 
contrary it is very important and the article highlights the problems 
for all when no attention is paid to the durability/longevity. So I was 
emphatically NOT suggesting that paying attention to longevity is rot.

I do wonder whether I've misinterpreted the tone of your response and, 
perhaps, you were just were joking with me?

All the best.
Steve Gledhill
http://www.virtuall <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> ygrey.co.uk/

Tom Baker wrote:
>
> Just one clarification. Some, if not many, on this list are not so 
> much interested in the longevity for 'fine art' as they are for family 
> photos. Family photos are much more likely to handed down from 
> generation to generation, and longevity would be very important. So, 
> from this perspective it is not rot.
> Tom Baker
>

> Steve Gledhill wrote:
> I know some of us are (rightly) obsessed with the longevity of our
> prints. Here's and article entitled "A Load of Rot" from last week's
> Sunday Telegraph in the UK which puts into perspective our concerns
> about how long our works of art might last.
> http://www.telegrap
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/11/26/svartdecay2
6.xml&page=1>
h.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/11/26/svartdecay26.xml&page=1 
> <http://www.telegrap
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/11/26/svartdecay2
6.xml&page=1>
h.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2006/11/26/svartdecay26.xml&page=1>
> Steve Gledhill
> http://www.virtuall <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> ygrey.co.uk/
<http://www.virtuall <http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/> ygrey.co.uk/>
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger
<http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com> .yahoo.com 

 



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