Re: Presentation Question

From: PhotoGecko Austin ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 09/11/04-07:55:44 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Hmmmm. . . .

I'm thinking thumb tacks. Or maybe push-pins. The really big primary
colored ones.

Oh! Or maybe that blue chewing gum-like sticky-goo that gives meaning
to life for 1st graders. It's just gotta be archival, right!

Seriously, I hang everything in off-the-shelf ready-made
(NielsenBainbridge, I think they are) thin (not thick, mind you
Judy--but they are all the same size) black frames with 2 inch chalky
mat borders. Boring as it can be, for me anyway. But my thinking is
that the more obvious the presentation, the more effected (. . .
altered? . . . constricted? . . . corrupted, perhaps?) the viewer's
perception of the print will be. Context effects the subject. And if
I spend a lot of energy around elaborate or creative framing the
framing becomes the point, which defeats my purpose. I want the
presentation to be as mundane as Special K in skim milk. I want it to
isolate the image and be invisible--nothing less or more. I don't want
anybody to say, "Oh, my--what a clever presentation!" I mean, it's not
a tuna steak, fer gosh sakes.

Judy loved Bea Nettles' work in books-- why might that be? Maybe
because the work was visible on the page. . . ? But in the thick black
frames, the frames became the point. . . ?

I dunno.

Hey. . . how about Scotch Tape? Any archival virtues there? Or, heck.
. . Duct Tape holds up pretty well.

Best to all,
John Campbell
PhotoGecko Studios & Gallery
1413 South First Street
Austin, Tx 78704

(512) 797-9375

On Sep 11, 2004, at 3:50 AM, Judy Seigel wrote:

> If you only have two you can't make a row of them on the wall, but I'd
> suggest painting them red anyway or you could leave them out in the
> rain (without the photographs) for a year or so.
> Meanwhile, speaking of shucks, what is this golden rectangle rule of
> thirds business. Schuyler, you have nailed your thesis to the wall. I
> promise that I won't say another word, except I'm curious about how
> you use those rules and if others agree...
> Judy

> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, PhotoGecko Austin wrote:
>> . . . . darn. . . .
>> Now I've gotta take my prints (both of them) out of those thick black
>> frames.
>> So, what *should* I do with them?
>> On Sep 10, 2004, at 10:05 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Schuyler Grace wrote:
>>>> .... And if the final product isn't presented
>>>> properly, all the effort expended on the process can be wasted ...
>>> My alarm bells ring for this one... if we are supposed to be
>>> freethinking creative artists, we ought to be able to present work
>>> according to our own freethinking creative sensibility, not by what
>>> is all too often a lifeless convention.
>>> I recall some time around 1980, the first show of work I'd ever seen
>>> by Bea Nettles. I *loved* her work in books, but when I walked into
>>> the gallery all I could see was a row of same size black wood frames
>>> the length of 3 walls. The work, neatly matted inside, was
>>> invisible.
>>> So today you probably wouldn't put your work in thick black
>>> frames... But that was the "proper" thing then. Beware...
>>> Judy
Received on Sat Sep 11 07:56:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 10/01/04-09:17:55 AM Z CST