Re: gum over platinum

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/09/04-02:48:59 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 wrote:

> .... I wonder how the inkjet negative/in-camera
> negative argument will be looked at 200 years from now in these archives, should
> they survive. I see quite similar arguments rehashed over and over on the
> forums for large format inkjet printing—Optimum file resolution being an example.

Photo mags of the 1930s have plenty of harrumphing about "miniature
cameras" not being *real* photography... "Miniature" was of course 35 mm,
sometimes also 2-1/4.

What happens is cameras & films get better, and a new aesthetic is
discovered, etc. etc.

Same will probably happen with inkjet -- although here's a new one. At the
Lucas Samaras show now at Whitney Museum, there's a room of his
manipulations on Apple computer, as seen in what are CLEARLY digital
prints of whatever machine. For medium the wall label lists "Pure
Pigment." Period.

Received on Mon Feb 9 14:49:39 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:08 AM Z CST