I'm serious. The technology is more sophisticated than the art world.
john
You said a mouthful there John. Ultimately, the art world hinges on the secondary market and the auction houses. That's where the rubber meets the road. Art historians literally are the arbiters of taste, not the gallerists. Once an artwork establishes itself in the auction with a significant price history begins to take over. There is an obfuscation of the digital print because of so much schlock out there. What sells in the auction houses is not digital, so film and prints made by archaic methods continue to dominate world markets. There are a few exceptions however, although those "artists" damage perceptions in my view, Not naming names because I don't want to start an "art war".
Art historians view digital prints with suspicion, and an "everything is Gicle" eye. The technology is misunderstood because for the most part the art gets in the way. Additionally there is the stigma of the "master", in the cases of the modern masters and we all know who they are. I have no doubt that you or I or Ernst could take any film print done by any so-called master, and make it utterly sing, so improved is the technology at this point. But that is not the mission of the art historian, Theirs is to document what technology was used at the time of significant and major breakthroughs in art and art history of the time.
In the end, there will be art historians who will have a greater understanding of digital technology and there will be plenty of evidence of longevity of prints and those that do make it, ie are still among the living will no doubt be seen as revolutionary in hindsight, particularly in comparison to their counterparts.
What HP has accomplished with their Vivera Inks and their delivery systems will play a significant role in historical documentation. That is one point I tried to hammer home; there is a significant achievement that has empowered many artists with a technology that is vastly evolved over what has become the mainstay of galleries and auction houses. Once the floodgates open, there will be a renaissance of sorts and the dark ages will be a thing of the past (not that there is anything wrong with it).
Ultimately we're talking about image longevity and stability. Chances are it will occur to many that in order to protect the film iconography that this realm of master comprises,that digital prints will be the ultimate answer for any sort of archival surety, certainly the only reliable solution when it comes to objects with museum heft.
I feel I understand it and I have tried to explain this to HP and anyone else who will listen but skepticism lingers even in the face of proof. That's not my problem however, it is theirs, and ultimately it will become burdensome in the not too distant future.
By the way, I don't mean to exclude Canon or Epson from this discussion, it's just that I'm sticking with the horse I have chosen and have the most faith in regarding longevity and archivalness.
I'm working at making as many of my most significant and important prints as I can, now, knowing that an end is near, for what might possibly be called the golden age of digital printing. If HP pulls out by not expanding on the potential of their fine art printing products, it will indeed be the end of an era for many.
In that regard, considering the historicity that is at stake, that would be a tragedy, a significant loss ultimately, for the art world and many photographers and printers who have invested heavily in their technology and vision. The thought that this one series of printers in the face of all the rest that HP produces, could ultimately assure their place in history, due to simple longevity, is critical for them to understand if they are to move forward in this arena as they have in the past with the one brief yet most significant achievement via the Barcelona team.
Mark