Re: Name's

What about 'Update on Historical Photographic Technique', Up His ?

The first part is meant to be serious, the annual Update.

Witho

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Sullivan" <richsul@earthlink.net>
To: <carbon@spitbite.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [carbon] Name's

> Witho,
>
> Well said!
>
> The terms may change due to context. For the most formal situations I
> prefer "Historical" but will use "hand made" when appropriate. "Chemical
> Based" might be used in a classroom discussion where the context is clear.
> Uncle Bill may not get a glimmer as to what that means when discussing it
> with him.
>
> We are planning an APIS next summer. It may find a name change and will
> fall under the Center for Photographic History and Technology. The
> "alternative" in title is a problem as we have discussed here. Any ideas
> for a name for the symposium?
>
> --Dick
>
> At 12:48 AM 9/8/2004, you wrote:
> >By trying to establish a taxonomy of photographic processes it is
inevitably
> >to come to crossovers. They show that techniques are not as separate from
> >each other as we would wish, for definition purposes alone.
> >
> >If I describe what I am doing I most of the time talk about Historical
> >Processes. Processes that still very clearly in touch with their
historical
> >photographic roots. Then I date them as from before 1900. I use the word
> >handmade, say UV and point at the sun. I also talk bout the Graphics
> >contrary to digital printmaking. I use the distinction between chemical
> >based to digital and more down the line I will divide between metal based
> >and pigment based.
> >The problem with defining is not describing what something is but to
exclude
> >other things even for the future.
> >
> >Vintage I will use to determine who made the print, in the case of
vintage
> >it is the photographers self. This term goes back to the time that
> >photographers knew how to print. Could be inkjet though.
> >
> >In my sense Alternative is a inadequate term. It describes no content but
> >relates to something else, anything else then alternative. If we were
able
> >to describe what that something else is we also can describe what we mean
by
> >'our' technique. Besides, there are very few people who develop an
> >alternative technique. Maybe Webb and Reed came close to describe
> >Alternative technique in their 'Spirits and Salts' but only alternatives
for
> >the traditional historical printing techniques.
> >
> >I think it is best to have an international convention in Santa Fe, next
> >summer for instance to, and give it a name.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Witho
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> >carbon mailing list
> >carbon@spitbite.org
> >FAQ at http://spitbite.org/carbon/list.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> carbon mailing list
> carbon@spitbite.org
> FAQ at http://spitbite.org/carbon/list.html
>

_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
carbon mailing list
carbon@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/carbon/list.html
Received on Thu Sep 9 04:55:31 2004