Rothko and permanence (was:!Re: Presentation Question

From: Katharine Thayer ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 09/12/04-06:22:20 AM Z
Message-id: <>

Schuyler Grace wrote:
> Oops...Katharine, I didn't mean you when I wrote about photographers signing
> in the middle of their images. I'm sure your imprint adds to the image,
> like "Rothko" would on one of his. :')

I know this remark was tongue in cheek, but just the same let's be
clear about this: no, I certainly don't think my name on a gum print is
like Rothko's name on a painting. I have a good strong ego, but I'm not
delusional! No, I write my name in the image not because I think it
adds to the investment value of the work, but because it's what makes
sense to me.

But while we're talking about Rothko, I think it merits a moment to
think about the fact that much of Rothko's work, created no more than
30-60 years ago, has lost its magic and cannot be shown. I think this is
a real shame, and something to think about when making decisions about
materials and methods that might impact on the permanence of work.

Okay, back to work,
Received on Sun Sep 12 13:18:24 2004

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