Digital BW, The Print

Can't help but chuckle & _SKIP_ if you are not feeling philosophical.
 
THE CHUCKLE
I'm pretty sure I can set up a negative, mix Amidol and print a 16x20 
in less than an hour, clean up too.  Each art media has its nuances, 
we learn to love them.  Amusing that silver printing is less size 
dependent to time, than procedure.  This aside from the 19th Century 
photographers who carried mammoth plates in their wagon afar afield.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ARCHIVAL
Couple of years ago I saw VanGogh drawings.  They are a lovely shade 
to brown tones & if I remember correctly, historians believe they 
were nearly purple originally.

I am very fond of Paul Klee and Jawlensky's work in the early 20th 
Century.  They can be expensive (I don't have a collection) and they 
can also be oil on cardboard...talk about archival issues.

We look at watercolors or pastels under 15 watts of light in the 
Louvre.  Marvel at buildings that have sat outside in the sun for 
centuries (though our last century has been the hardest on them too, 
archivally speaking).

WHERE THE MODERN DILEMMA STARTS:
      with the advent of archeology as a science (perhaps).

Edward Weston's platinum prints can be expensive, but he loved silver 
prints and made striking images in both.  He also complained about 
not finding the right paper for the image at times.  Told people they 
would just have to wait.  

When is it art?  Who brought upon us the impeding desire to achieve 
an archival product?  (Curators, whose job it is to preserve, not 
create & sometimes the artistic process makes their job a lot harder -
 that's my guess)

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
(Sorry, I occassionally mis-spell words and lapse into this type of 
thinking...it makes up for my lack of tinker motivation ;-)

It is a big CHUCKLE... We're spending a lot of time justifying why we 
are at the cutting edge of the technology in our art form. Talk about 
irony... The photographic art form is, by definition, a combination 
of art and technology. The first prints were marvels of science, not 
art! And so it goes. Each improvement has come from either a burning 
artistic vision forcing someone to push the technology (better lens, 
flash, what have you)... Or better technology allowing an artist to 
push his or her art.

This has always been the way... And always will, I would think... 
It's just great to be in the lead when some of our thoughts and ideas 
can have impact. Our small groups testing and pushing today will 
shape the mainstream use of these new technologies... What an 
important accomplishment! Try though we might, not all of our images 
will reside in the Museum of Modern Art... But our work and reactions 
to new developments will determine which technologies will continue 
to grow and which will die off... For the artists of tomorrow.

Good grief... What a lot of responsibility!!! <g>


Tom O'Connell



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., lyonscox@m... wrote:
> Can't help but chuckle & _SKIP_ if you are not feeling 
philosophical.
>  
> THE CHUCKLE
> I'm pretty sure I can set up a negative, mix Amidol and print a 
16x20 
> in less than an hour, clean up too.  Each art media has its 
nuances, 
> we learn to love them.  Amusing that silver printing is less size 
> dependent to time, than procedure.  This aside from the 19th 
Century 
> photographers who carried mammoth plates in their wagon afar afield.
> 
> HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ARCHIVAL
> Couple of years ago I saw VanGogh drawings.  They are a lovely 
shade 
> to brown tones & if I remember correctly, historians believe they 
> were nearly purple originally.
> 
> I am very fond of Paul Klee and Jawlensky's work in the early 20th 
> Century.  They can be expensive (I don't have a collection) and 
they 
> can also be oil on cardboard...talk about archival issues.
> 
> We look at watercolors or pastels under 15 watts of light in the 
> Louvre.  Marvel at buildings that have sat outside in the sun for 
> centuries (though our last century has been the hardest on them 
too, 
> archivally speaking).
> 
> WHERE THE MODERN DILEMMA STARTS:
>       with the advent of archeology as a science (perhaps).
> 
> Edward Weston's platinum prints can be expensive, but he loved 
silver 
> prints and made striking images in both.  He also complained about 
> not finding the right paper for the image at times.  Told people 
they 
> would just have to wait.  
> 
> When is it art?  Who brought upon us the impeding desire to achieve 
> an archival product?  (Curators, whose job it is to preserve, not 
> create & sometimes the artistic process makes their job a lot 
harder -
>  that's my guess)
> 
> 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
> (Sorry, I occassionally mis-spell words and lapse into this type of 
> thinking...it makes up for my lack of tinker motivation ;-)