Re: An Actual Photograph; was list minders

From: [email protected]
Date: 03/16/05-08:18:01 AM Z
Message-id: <>

>Are these not true photographic prints?

Last year at the APIS convention in Scotland, Dusan Stulik of the Getty
Museum defined a photograph (this is a rough paraphrase from memory) as
an image created on photo-sensitive materials that could be fixed for
permanence. In this sense, a sun tan is not a photograph...unless perhaps
embalming could "fix" the image in place.

So, given this definition, a digital print would not be a "photograph"
even though it depicts, and is the end result of, a photographic process.
Which takes us back to Richard Sullivan's statement that inkjet prints
are "prints" and not photographs.

At the moment, I'd agree with Richard but as our medium evolves it's
likely the "standard" way of expressing images (via inkjet or dye sub)
will indeed be regarded as "photographs," leaving no bother of
distinction for most people. Maybe we should adopt Dusan's other
wonderful term, "Classic," that he uses to denote the pre-digital era of
photography. We could talk about "classic photographs" and "modern
photographs." That would work until photography makes the next turn and
we sculp holograms via gamma rays.

To avoid such confusion I'm working on a new portfolio of post-futurist

It's all very complicated. ;^)

Received on Wed Mar 16 08:18:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:01 AM Z CST