RE: [Leica] Giclee and gelatine (was SNAPS etc.)

["Tim Atherton" <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

check out the NY Times article (you may need to subscribe)

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/25/arts/25VICK.html?searchpv=site03

Tim A


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of henry
> Sent: March 28, 2001 11:16 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Giclee and gelatine (was SNAPS etc.)
>
>
> >> so I'm really grumbling in my
> >> single-malt,
> >
> >> Paul
> >
> >
> >Ha ha ha - "single-malt" now there's a nicely pretentious term. Don't you
> >just mean whisky! Why on earth would you need to define the
> actual process
> >with such elitist terminology...? What on earth does it matter to your
> >average whisky drinker? Oh, and of course, it sure drives the
> pricing up ;-)
> >
> >Tim A
> >
> >
> I've thought a bit more about what it is that bothers me about this
> naming thing.
>
> Partly its that somehow I believe that detailed technical explanation is
> beyond the interest/ability of most viewers/buyers to understand. By that
> I mean that they won't really "get it" but will simply categorize the
> method as "good" or "bad" based on what they last read in some collecting
> magazine or on "common knowledge" of whats good or bad or what their
> friend "who knows about this" told them.
>
> An example would be the country of origin of wines - if a wine is from
> Country A its good if its from Country B its bad (or somehow not as
> good). A decision is reached without tasting!
>
> What makes it hurt is that much like a wine producer who is relegated to
> a lesser class without tasting, a photograph can be relegated in a
> similar fashion. If its on RC its not as good as fiber. If its color its
> bad. If its inkjet its automatic crap. I know those things are not true.
> A lot of the world does not and the result is not tasting (deciding for
> oneself) but buying (or not) based on what some art/wine expert writes
> about whats good or bad. The photograph is not judged on its merits but
> on some less than factual opinion of its worth based on technique or
> production.
>
> I think Slobodan wrote something about this recently on the LUG, to the
> effect of
> "this is a technically wonderful print, officially archival and never you
>  mind about content"
>
> This is what I despise.
>
> The established art industry wants to maintain their turf by poo-pooing
> anything new that comes along. "We don't do this so its bad" "Not
> invented here"
>
> And, of course there's the thinking its a shortcut if you scan the film
> and print it using a computer - simple push button art - any fool can do
> it!
>
> Openness to digital prints is growing, but slowly. I'm seeing some in
> traditional galleries along side wet prints. They can both be "art" -
> good art.
>
> Henry
>