RE: Research Question - Darkrooms closed?

From: Richard Sullivan ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 10/10/04-09:58:23 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Thanks to Judy, Liam, Ender, and Diana and the ones I missed. And if any
more come to mind please post.

I can't go into to much detail as to my reasons for this particular aspect.
It's a hot button political issue.

It does relate to a program I have been asked to design that greatly
expands the teaching of historical processes and integrates photographic
processes into other programs such as ceramics, fiber art, printmaking,
book arts, etc. It's pretty ambitious and includes a 2 year, 4 year, and
MFA program. It is all at the early proposal stage and is far from being a
done deal.

I have decided to use the term "historical processes" instead of
alternative or non-silver. It goes over better in the academic setting.
Alternative sounds a lot like it might involve acupuncture, and
non-silver... well! My school had used the term "obsolete processes" in
some contexts if one can imagine that, and then to think the school also
teaching business marketing!

Perhaps "historical" is not perfect but does have a sophisticated ring to
it. I give a heavy dose of history in my classes. I go into a lot of detail
as to living in a world where people were not inundated with images minute
by minute. That the search for a permanent process, and I focus on the
invention of carbon printing, which was serious business involving sealed
envelopes being sent by courier under guard to the local scientific
societies, patents and massive follow up lawsuits. Students today can
easily view these processes as quaint photo 101 endeavors and miss the
tremendous impact the development of photography had on society in their
day. I also have a view that much of the early development was centered on
making printing plates and not parlor pictures. I believe Niepce and
Daguerre were attempting to make a printing plate and had to settle for the
parlor print. Note that it was many years before a decent photomechanical
process was developed and photomechanical reproductions outnumber prints by
megafactors. (new word?)

Interestingly enough, the secret that eluded everyone on carbon printing
for a long time was solved by transferring the gel and developing from the
back side. Gee that sounds so simple. Why did it take so long?

I digress but as I finish this proposal I will post it.

--Dick Sullivan
Center for Photographic History and technology
   At 09:17 PM 10/8/2004, you wrote:
>I don't know why you want the info, but maybe something else to look into
>would be how many traditional camera clubs have packed up, and how many new
>digital clubs have sprung up. Plenty here in the UK.
Received on Sun Oct 10 10:02:13 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 11/03/04-10:51:22 AM Z CST