Re: And how sharp I am was/Re: Temperaprint & Gum

From: Sandy King ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/30/04-04:56:45 PM Z
Message-id: <a0602041bbc408e0cd597@[192.168.1.100]>

Judy Seigel wrote:

>
>
>I think by the way (say I, risking a few knives myself) there's ENTIRELY
>too much concern with sharpness in this field.

Thank what you want Judy, but there are certain kinds of photography
where such qualities as image sharpness are highly appreciated and
are seen as evidence of a higher level of craftsmanship.

With others kinds of imagery, gum bichromate for example, we have
other kinds of expectations.

> I make an analogy to the
>obsession over archivality that you DO NOT FIND, and NEVER HAVE FOUND
>among painters or persons who draw. That's because they're confident
>about what they're doing, don't feel worried that it's not REAL art, so
>they try to prove a point with archivality.

I think this may be more opinion than fact. It is true that many
contemporary artists do not appear concerned with archival issues but
I think a very good case could be made that most artists of past
centuries were highly knowledgeable of their materials and selected
them carefully for permanence.

Perhaps you are familiar with the Parnassian school of poetry of 19th
century France? I recall a specific poem in which the poet, who was
also a sculpture, praised the qualities of more permanent materials
such as bronze and marble over the more fugitive materials.

>
>When this field is REALLY confident, we'll hear that about 5 times less
>than formerly.
>
>J.

I can state with confidence that our entire knowledge of the past is
based on things that have survived.

Sandy
Received on Fri Jan 30 16:58:17 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/02/04-09:50:00 AM Z CST