Digital BW, The Print

Carolyn please don't take anything I write below "personally" as I am just stating an opinion (not of a person) and curious to see the differences of opinion and rationale that is out there in cyberspace on this esthetics issue. Seriously...and not so seriously...this is intended to spark a little dialogue and humour...that is all. 

Carolyn Wrote (SNIP):

"Some art and some
alternative photography is framed so that the print "floats".. therefore
allowing a deckled edge to show. I like this too... why do we have to stick
with a clean edge?"

I find the "floating paper look" to be a little pretentious."  As if the deckled edge says something in the image/composition.  As if the paper edge was more important than the image that is printed on the paper.   Does the artist/photographer imagine the edge is so worthy of attention that it must be shown off to the viewer?  (dont take offense anyone out there...remember this is not personal).  Of course I feel the same way when I see a young woman who wears her blouse with the lable showing on the back of the neck.  I mean really...who needs to show off the label on the back of the neck of the garment...who in the esthetics arbiter world had the "fashion sense" to establish that?  Not that that is a female thing...I have seen many young men wearing their boxers so everyone can read the label showing outside of their pants.  Of course I also feel about the same with blue jeans that have purposefully been "holed" in the knees...just to reveal that seductive kneecap that everyone wants so much to see.  I suppose I am also influenced by my upbringing...where esthetics says such dictates of taste as "the top (edges again) of a man's socks/stockings (wink) is not supposed to show."  So that is about what I think about the edges showing.  (wink = humourous intent)

 If the artist made the paper by hand and if that is what they intend to demonstrate...it can be shown with a card to the side of the frame that says simply "hand made paper."  Deckled edges are "cute" and nothing more than the edge of the paper as it made it out of the mold or paper making machine.  I see nothing inherently beneficial to a deckle.  (now that should get a few feathers up).  

In my curmudgeon mode now I also think the "floating" look is so "1980's"  Reminds me of the ubiquitous "weavings" and "woven paper" art that proliferated in the corporate collections and hotel lobbies across America. Fits right in there with bright cheap aluminum frames in my opinion.  

That stuff got so common that (for me at least...and I am surely in the minority here) it lost its appeal.  How many strips of colored paper can one weave and put behind glass and then sell to the hotels? 

Curmudgeon Viewpoint:  I suppose much of that "multimedia" stuff comes from those artists who were the frustrated string-art artists from the 1970s. I also suspect the local framing shop just loves to "float" anything they get...it means a deeper frame and more "labor" to charge the artist/customer.
  
Carolyn again (SNIP): 
"with this in mind I ask you... do you think that because most galleries I've
read about prefer a photograph mounted in a clean white matte this has in
turn defined what many see as the proper way to hang all photography?"

Heck yes.  And er...no.  The clean white matte is surely better than a green matte.  Unless you have a really nice olive toned ink print to matte (wink).  The neutral matte is for two good reasons...nothing to compete with or "color" (by reflecting light upon)  the image/print for sale, and historically, the white rag matte was the safest for archival purposes.  Now things are different on one of those points...as the major matte board companies also make museum mattes with a variety of colors on the front (visible) surface.  Despite that, I still pick a natural white museum matte board for most of my prints....unless I pick a black linen matte (acid free of  course) that looks super for some images. 

Anyway...my "contribution" to this thread is getting a little long now...so someone else chime in.

Steadman






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

Steadman,

> Carolyn please don't take anything I write below "personally" as I am just
> stating an opinion (not of a person) and curious to see the differences of
> opinion and rationale that is out there in cyberspace on this esthetics issue.
> Seriously...and not so seriously...this is intended to spark a little dialogue
> and humour...that is all.

I don't take anything personally anymore... I have teenagers!   <g>.

snip
> is not personal).  Of course I feel the same way when I see a young woman who
> wears her blouse with the lable showing on the back of the neck.  I mean
> really...who needs to show off the label on the back of the neck of the
> garment...who in the esthetics arbiter world had the "fashion sense" to
snip

The labels are actually sewn on the outside of garments now... on purpose,
it's a trendy thing they tell me... ugh.

snip
> simply "hand made paper."  Deckled edges are "cute" and nothing more than the
> edge of the paper as it made it out of the mold or paper making machine.  I
> see nothing inherently beneficial to a deckle.  (now that should get a few
> feathers up).  

Deckle the halls with floating paper...

> In my curmudgeon mode now I also think the "floating" look is so "1980's"
> Reminds me of the ubiquitous "weavings" and "woven paper" art that
> proliferated in the corporate collections and hotel lobbies across America.
> Fits right in there with bright cheap aluminum frames in my opinion.

 still see a lot of plants hanging in macrame! ;-)

snip
> Curmudgeon Viewpoint:  I suppose much of that "multimedia" stuff comes from
> those artists who were the frustrated string-art artists from the 1970s. I

I just had this discussion with a friend... I don't particularily like a lot
of digital art I see, but again, that's a personal opinion.  Frustrated
string-art!  Stubborn maybe Steadman but funny to be sure... Were you taught
string art in high school? I remember it well.

snip
> also suspect the local framing shop just loves to "float" anything they
> get...it means a deeper frame and more "labor" to charge the artist/customer.

Ah, this makes sense.... same goes for the shadow boxes people put three
dimensional objects in to hang on their walls. Expensive...

> Carolyn again (SNIP):
> "with this in mind I ask you... do you think that because most galleries I've
> read about prefer a photograph mounted in a clean white matte this has in
> turn defined what many see as the proper way to hang all photography?"
> 
> Heck yes.  And er...no.  The clean white matte is surely better than a green
> matte.  Unless you have a really nice olive toned ink print to matte (wink).
> The neutral matte is for two good reasons...nothing to compete with or "color"
> (by reflecting light upon)  the image/print for sale, and historically, the
> white rag matte was the safest for archival purposes.  Now things are
> different on one of those points...as the major matte board companies also
> make museum mattes with a variety of colors on the front (visible) surface.
> Despite that, I still pick a natural white museum matte board for most of my
> prints....unless I pick a black linen matte (acid free of  course) that looks
> super for some images.

I prefer a white matte, black is an alternative... sometimes gray... but not
colors. Sorry, what I was so poorly trying to illustrate was that the clean
over matting was the definition not the color of the matte.

Best, Carolyn