Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Piezography - real print or not?

[S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net>]

The definitions are simple. With a vintage print, you're usually dead
and that's the term the scavengers, sorry I meant investors, use for
your work. It implies that it was printed during the time of your
creative vibrancy. What really makes these prints worth so much, is that
they are done at the expense of eating and paying the rent and on an
indecent amount of borrowing moneys from friends and family to survive.
They, of course, will never realize any return on that inconvenience.
These prints as a rule, are not archivally done, and are a conservator's
nightmare. So piezo away with abandon.

With an archival print, in the glow of artist hubris you're hoping that
it will be worth something someday, and you ain't dead yet. Unless you
are a California photographer or artist, then you are bound by law to
take certain actions and be held accountable to a variety of remedies to
protect the investors. Whose friends, by the way, in the California
legislature were
so kind to codify into law our responsibilities within the open market
place of the print buying world. An archival print follows the rigorous
guide lines set by our culture of rampant consumption in using the most
amount of resources in generating that rarefied final product we call a
print. The term archival is now a mnemonic cue that says that "this is
worth something," and never you mind the content.


Slobodan Dimitrov


Steven Alexander wrote:
> 
> on 3/6/01 10:37 PM, Ted Grant at tedgrant@home.com wrote:
> 
> > B.D. wrote:
> >>>>>>> Which, of course, can set one to wondering about what all this worry
> >> about "archival" lifespan is really all about - could it simply be a way
> >> for the "traditionalists" to sew false doubts about the value of the new
> >> print technologies? ;-)<<<<<
> > kinds of  "new prints" in the 200th year!   Think about that for a moment!
> >
> > The long lasting print is fine, but it's the film that is the secret of your
> > photography living forever! Not a print that can be zipped off in seconds on
> > a new printer, besides the printers of the future are going to make those of
> > today appear as though we are writing in stone with a hammer and chisel!
> >
> > So from old YODA ;-) relax, put the archival thing to rest for prints and
> > put a greater degree of effort into making sure you process your films to
> > the enth degree of perfection for the archives of your nation! And the
> > colour stuff? yer on yer own! ;-)
> > ted
> >
> > Ted Grant Photography Limited
> > www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant
> 
> To add my 2 cents, sorry Buzz, I fully agree with Ted about the over
> emphasis on print life.  So called vintage prints of my work from 40 years
> ago placed next to new prints (either digital or silver based) do not sell
> as well.  Printers (the people) and materials are much better today and
> artistic senses have changed.  I was at an A. Adams/ E. Adams exhibit at the
> Philips Collection in Andover, MA., and the new prints of A. Adam old
> negatives have greater vibrancy IMO.
> 
> Prints should last but except for those create 100 years ago all the tests
> are just that.  My negatives are the things I want to last a very long time.
> 
> The television networks have lost a good deal of visual history because they
> tried to archive it on video tape and today many things are gone.  This is
> also true of early motion picture FILM; however, today we are told we
> understand the process better and film will last.
> 
> Happy snaps,
> Steven Alexander