Tim, we may not disagree as much as it seems. When you say that the printing processes, tones, etc., make an image realise the artist's vision (substitute "maker" for "artist" and we're closer - not all sincere efforts produce "art") that's true - for the maker, those things are important. For me, however, as simply the viewer, all that counts is the resulting sum of the maker's efforts.
In my case, if I like an image, I may have some interest in the process and materials used in its creation. If I don't like it, I don't care if the maker spent six months in solitude, feasting solely on dry bread and cold coffee, and used home-brewed developers and toners and made his own paper and coated it with home-made emulsion. If the image isn't interesting, then none of the creation is. At least that's the way I see it.
In simplistic terms, I vote for product over process every time. Only if the product is "engaging" does the process hold any interest.
-Bill On Saturday, December 16, 2006, at 05:27 AM, Tim Rudman wrote:
Well I guess we disagree Bill - which is fine.However, I never suggested that one needs to be able to see what film or developer has been used in the makeup of an image, I would agree thus far. However, the printing processes used, the techniques employed, the toners used and a host of other things can and often do 'make' an image realise the potential of the artist's vision. It's fine if you don't like it. It's good if someone does. We fortunately don't all share the same aesthetics in anyart form. Tim http://www.worldoflithprinting.com http://www.thegalleryonthegreen.co.uk/events/coldsnap.html -----Original Message----- From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Stephenson Sent: 16 December 2006 00:04 To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [pure-silver] Re: The Quest and My Heresy?? Tim, I have to disagree. How the image reaches the paper has no morerelevance to the impact, interest, or what have you, than how you get to theGrand Canyon affects how the Canyon looks. Fly and take a cab; drive; hitchhike; hike - whatever. The Canyon is not affected by your means of reaching it. A good print ("good" as in "interesting", or"engaging") is a good print. In exhibitions, I've never walked up to a printand said "Wow - looks like Tri-X in Rodinal on Ilfobrome w/Dektol, 68 degrees F for processing" - and I doubt that I ever will. I *have* walked up to a print and said "Wow! That's an interesting face - and a nice image of it." I don't care what camera, lens, film, light, developer, enlarger, lens,paper, easel, developer, and so on were used to make a print. If the print is boring, dull, uninteresting, unengaging, etc., the process amounts to(first choice word deleted for politeness) zilch. -Bill On Friday, December 15, 2006, at 03:58 PM, Tim Rudman wrote:Yes, I know what the image is Dana, and how it gets onto the print is critical to how it communicates with the viewer - and therefore how 'interesting' it is (to that viewer), or perhaps 'engaging' might be a better term for what I mean. Tim======================================================================= ======================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to youraccount (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.======================================================================= ====================================== To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
