Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?  (Read 15229 times)

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #60 on: November 17, 2017, 07:42:04 pm »

Giclee just means ink jet. It may be a BS marketing term but so is a badge on a BMW. If it works for you then use it.

Not really.  BMW means you know the manufacturer and their history and standards.  Giclee really just means "car" in that analogy.  A printer brand name is more akin to BMW (combined with a paper name).
Logged
Phil Brown

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20646
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #61 on: November 17, 2017, 08:22:38 pm »

Dye sub is delivered by inkjet more commonly than as a contone printer, printing onto transfer substrate and the sublimated onto the final substrate (whether it's a coffee mug, or a sheet of metal, clothing, or whatever).
OK, gotta ya. Vastly different (and newer) dye sub photo printer.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1596
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #62 on: November 17, 2017, 10:30:42 pm »

As the topic has shifted from the original post, into a more generic discourse on redefining the branding of the process of digital print making it bears looking at how the term Giclee was used in the past and how museums are currently using and defining the process presently.  At one point, Giclee implied that the end product of the process was a “faithful reproduction” of an original work of art, presumably a painting or drawing, rendering, whatever.  The job of the Giclee was to deliver a facsimile of an “important” work in an acceptable quality, as to provide support of the original, thereby relegating all products made after the original, copies, never originals, themselves.  Not unlike prints from a unique stone, each numbered giclee had an indexical relationship to the original, yet could never be equal to the original by virtue of this supportive role it was necessarily playing.

As time went on, photographers making their prints now with inkjet printers rather than via wet darkroom techniques, began viewing the prints themselves as original works, albeit now having an indexical relationship, presumably to the in-camera negative and subsequently processed image, pre-print.  Therefore the inkjet print gained somewhat in stature over the previous “giclee-cheap-copy” by becoming an inkjet print copy of itself, which was hoped to be viewed as art as in a new art form, the way photography eventually became accepted as art eventually, after Adams, Weston, Steiglitz, et al.

So today, museums still very much view the Archival Pigment Print as the updated, evolved workhorse cum Giclee vehicle for supporting actual works of art rather than, even though the Archival Pigment Print is verified for longevity if executed on the correct substrates with the correct inks, (pigments), and stored under approved archival conditions.  Today only very gradually are so-called Archival Pigment Prints being accessioned by museum collections in comparison to historical means of image making traditions.

Witness the Boston Museum of Fine Art which has an entire Digital Art Program whereby anyone can get life-like replicas of museum originals, for their personal enjoyment.

GET YOUR ARCHIVAL PIGMENT PRINTS NOW

Insofar as the original concept of chewing up charcoal, mixing it with spittle, or animal fat, etc., and literally spitting the medium out upon and around one’s own hand on cave walls (called “spit painting”) in places like Lascaux, or Chauvet, could be more likely how the term Giclee came about, in reference to this context of “spitting ink”.  But even then, the resultant image was only a crude “copy” of the hand, or whatever silhouette of original object. 

So really, in terms of how few actually unique inkjet art prints made under whatever name are actually being collected, compared to how many “Archival Copies” of “Original Art” are being sold, the inkjet print has a long way to go to gain museum art acceptability in comparison with what is being truly focused on by museum curators, preparators, conservators, etc.

Until the Machine Made Cad Cam Reproductive Process somehow finds legitimacy in the realm of fine art, and I’m talking about the fine art that academicians argue over, in terms of content based constructs, the lowly inkjet print still has a long way to go, and a brilliant marketing schema in order to transcend into the anals of history in the contextuality of museum historicity. 

It is my view that the machine made print has yet to come into its own in order for it to sufficiently gain museum heft.  We have not yet seen the evidence of the transcendant process: the gift of the machine.  We are still in the spitting stage.  When we see innovation such as seen with the paradigm of crapping over a log evolve to sitting and squatting in a box with a door on it, to actually moving effluent via a flow of water away from immediate sight and presence, will digital image creation (not reproduction) then and only then will it come into its own.

 What form will it take and still be considered a “print”?  Beyond the obvious scientific innovations where paper becomes subsumed, I believe there is still room for innovation with materials via a manufacturing process of creating a substrate that is dyed while forming, and which can morph in many directions based on developing upcoming printing technologies while still existing within the confines of our traditional notions of exactly what a photographic print is.  If in the process of becoming a “do-all” of process inclusive of making substrate and ink media, a new artform arises which so far and beyong exceeds current expectations, eventually then in all likihood, it would in addition obfuscate the need for museums which could no longer contain the vastness of innovation and evolution.

So are we going to keep talking about where we were and where we are, or are we going to focus on where we’re going?  Once we no longer have the right to make prints that arent regulated and licensed, it may behoove us to make images/objects that are deemed “unique” unless that is, we will have become by then, forced to join the only currently licensed artists, the architects, and become required to be duly appointed in whatever capacity fullfills criterion and guidelines to even own simulation processing delivery systems (SPDS) complying with the National MAESA (*Minimum Aesthetic Standards Act).

Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #63 on: November 17, 2017, 11:06:38 pm »

I had an interesting discussion with a floor person in a Peter Lik gallery in Vegas. 
After listening to a long pitch on the benefits of "Giclee", I said, "So, an inkjet print?"  She wouldn't answer.
odd.  Lik marketing brags about prints made on Fuji Crystal Archive Flex paper.  I’ve never heard of a Lik being produced by inkjet.

Maybe she was new and was just using her sales pitch from her last job.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 11:24:39 pm by Wayne Fox »
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #64 on: November 17, 2017, 11:24:01 pm »

the problem with using the word inkjet is people see this as the little cheap printer they have sitting in their house and office.

As far as the the word giclee, it was coined in 1991 when the process and equipment was far different, using an Iris printer.  It was quite some time before more standard large inkjet printers could produce competitive prints to that process, but the word has stuck to signify a higher than standard consumer inkjet printer product.

Stupid word, but it’s there, it’s very widely used, many buyers are very familiar with it.  And yes, it’s marketing speak, but then again the world is full of that.

Most photographers tend to resist using it, thus statement like  “archival pigment ink print" etc.  The Iris prints were adopted by artists for reproductions much earlier than it caught on with photographers, so maybe that’s why in the larger art market it’s so common but why many photographers avoid the word. To me, it’s not much different than using “crystal Archive” print which then is usually followed by some nonsense explaining how the crystals really make the colors better than other processes.

I’ll admit that after resisting it for many years, now with a brick and mortar gallery I finally gave up trying to avoid using it.  Nothing can ruin a sale quicker than trying to educate a customer on what exactly a giclee print is, watching their eyes glaze over and the “i really don’t care about that” expression come across their face. Easier to just agree that’s the type of print and move on.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 12:27:44 am by Wayne Fox »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20646
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #65 on: November 18, 2017, 11:24:49 am »

As far as the the word giclee, it was coined in 1991 when the process and equipment was far different, using an Iris printer.
Study the history of using an Iris as a 'fine art' printer, by Mac Holbert and Graham Nash. They both started Nash Editions in 1990 using an Iris, they had an employee later start his own competitive ink jet printing facility and make up the term giclee as a marketing 'trick' that has stuck in the minds of the marketing susceptible since then.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Nash
Early digital fine art printing


Quote
The Iris prints were adopted by artists for reproductions much earlier than it caught on with photographers, so maybe that’s why in the larger art market it’s so common but why many photographers avoid the word.
It was used in Prepress for proofing or for proofing high end retouch work, then after being viewed, it was thrown away. You could lick the color off the print!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1596
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #66 on: November 18, 2017, 12:33:45 pm »

"Giclée is the Häagen Dazs of printing...."

                                                          (Gleaned from a cursory internet search - unknown attribution, meaning some guy said that)
Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4237
    • waynefox.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #67 on: November 18, 2017, 12:36:37 pm »

yes, when introduced in 85, the main use of the Iris was for prepress.  But by the early 90’s several of the original problems were “solved”, and by the mid 90’s several similar printers were being built and marketed, and  it became popular with some artists to print their reproductions since they could do them as needed rather than all at once ( a big expense which sometimes took years to recoup). It was during this time the term giclee became popular to indicate something other than a traditional inkjet print, which were pretty cheap and had even worse longevity issues.

Perhaps the art crowd thought it had a cool sound or whatever, and it caught on big time. But  Iris style printers never caught on much with the photographic community, since high end scanning wasn’t really commonplace so traditional chemical printing was the norm.  By the time digital applications in photography, including cameras, began to grow, far cheaper and better alternatives had replaced the Iris style printers.

 I had one in operation for several years during that time period until I finally replaced it with a more traditional inkjet style printer, the Epson 9600 in 2002.  I still have a print on my wall that was produced in 98, and it still retains decent colors although there is a slight hint of fading.

As far as who coined the name and the background, interesting (and yes I was aware of that).  As stupid as the word is, the simple reality is it is now a commonly used word by all types of 2 dimensional artists all over the world.  Lots of words and sayings have odd or dubious originations.

Unfortunately , despite it’s stupidity, the use of the word is commonplace enough that it’s not going to go away anytime soon.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20646
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #68 on: November 18, 2017, 12:51:15 pm »

"Giclée is the Häagen Dazs of printing...."

                                                          (Gleaned from a cursory internet search - unknown attribution, meaning some guy said that)
Not too fair to Häagen Dazs  :o
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20646
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #69 on: November 18, 2017, 12:53:28 pm »

yes, when introduced in 85, the main use of the Iris was for prepress.  But by the early 90’s several of the original problems were “solved”, and by the mid 90’s several similar printers were being built and marketed, and  it became popular with some artists to print their reproductions since they could do them as needed rather than all at once ( a big expense which sometimes took years to recoup). It was during this time the term giclee became popular to indicate something other than a traditional inkjet print, which were pretty cheap and had even worse longevity issues.
Thanks in massive part to Holbert and Nash. Who never used the term and despise the term Giclée applied to ink jet prints. Out of respect to both printing pioneers, so do I.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #70 on: November 18, 2017, 01:06:59 pm »

........
Unfortunately , despite it’s stupidity, the use of the word is commonplace enough that it’s not going to go away anytime soon.

At the Paris Photo show the week before last - and recall this is a prestigious, high-end international event - I hardly saw the word "Giclee" used at all. The prevalent expression for an inkjet print was "Pigment Archival Print". Maybe the "Giclee" fixation is starting to pass into history - re printing photographs.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

nirpat89

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 661
    • Photography by Niranjan Patel
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #71 on: November 18, 2017, 01:54:55 pm »

At the Paris Photo show the week before last - and recall this is a prestigious, high-end international event - I hardly saw the word "Giclee" used at all. The prevalent expression for an inkjet print was "Pigment Archival Print". Maybe the "Giclee" fixation is starting to pass into history - re printing photographs.

Weren't the original Iris printers based on dye inks?  If so, those Giclee prints made in eighties and nineties might be beginning to fade by now.  May be that's why people are now flocking to the Archival Pigment Print term. 
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #72 on: November 18, 2017, 01:57:41 pm »

Maybe the "Giclee" fixation is starting to pass into history - re printing photographs.

It is...which is often hastened when you explain to somebody who mentions "Giclée" that it's French slang for ejaculate (you know, from a penis), they tend to back off using the stupid term.

And actually, it was Jack Duganne who worked for Graham Nash and with Mac Holbert that coined the term–which both Nash and Holbert hated. It was Jack's feeble attempt to make ink jet printing sound glamorous than it actually is....is you use the term around serious artists and collectors, expect to hear snickering behind your back.
Logged

enduser

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 610
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #73 on: November 18, 2017, 06:58:22 pm »

As an aside but relevant to some of this discussion, when we were selling canvas repros of my wife's art, many, many buyers who knew exactly what our product was (a print of artwork created on a tablet and made by an by inkjet printer) would say, how much do you want for the original? It was easier to say "we don't sell the original". Very few ever understood the full process. Our market was a well educated population but they just wanted the picture - that's all, not much discussion. Not the market that Mark S was part of in Paris.   ;D
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #74 on: November 18, 2017, 08:03:13 pm »

Not the market that Mark S was part of in Paris.   ;D

Well, my "part" of that market was just being there to see it, and even for that the entry fee was 30 EURO per DAY. But with about 183 exhibitors showing the work of easily three times as many artists it was quite a challenge just browsing it in two days.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

ripgriffith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 373
    • ripsart.com
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #75 on: November 18, 2017, 10:49:31 pm »

Mark, my friend, I don't see what the issue is. You (we) are still free to limit our editions or not. You (we) just can't use other people's marketing venues, e.g., art fairs, salons, galleries etc., that require limiting, but have our own or choose those that don't require limiting.

As for "unique" prints, you can always limit/number them as 1/1, even if canvas.

It is undeniable perception that scarcity is linked to higher value. You'd have to fight that human perception first, then tackle salons and art fairs.
+1
Logged

Garnick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #76 on: November 19, 2017, 12:25:12 pm »

It is...which is often hastened when you explain to somebody who mentions "Giclée" that it's French slang for ejaculate (you know, from a penis), they tend to back off using the stupid term.

And actually, it was Jack Duganne who worked for Graham Nash and with Mac Holbert that coined the term–which both Nash and Holbert hated. It was Jack's feeble attempt to make ink jet printing sound glamorous than it actually is....is you use the term around serious artists and collectors, expect to hear snickering behind your back.

Hi Jeff,

Yes, exactly correct.  When I first started making fine art prints for customers I also used the term Giclée.  However, after putting some serious thought to it I declined to use that word, which really has no intrinsic meaning at all as applied to printing.  Apparently it did serve its initial purpose, and at that time a lot of printers seemed to adopt the word for their own work.  I still occasionally have to reply to a potential customers question which is as follows - "Do you make Giclée prints?".  My answer to their query is YES, I do make Inkjet prints.  Then the conversation gets interesting.  The following is in the words of Jack Duganne himself, as he explains his reason for such an endeavour.  This is also the piece I hand out to those interested in Giclée printing.  It usually does the intended job. 



The Origin Of Giclée

  I coined the term Giclée back in 1989 and used it to describe a print for an
artist who was having her first show of ink jet prints done on an IRIS
printer. She had asked for a term and I developed the word based upon the
French word for "nozzle", which is gicleur. I “created” that word because
I thought that it should apply not only to just the IRIS prints, but also to
prints done on other printers in the future of digital printmaking. I assumed
that all printers would have to incorporate a nozzle in the printing process
for transferring the ink to the paper or substrate. The word giclée technically
means "that which is sprayed by a nozzle". I created the termto be used
specifically to separate fine art digital prints (or prints determined to be fine
art by the artist in that they intended to sign them) from non-art digital prints.
That is much the way the word "serigraph" is used to separate commercial
non-art silk screen prints from those intended to be art by the artists themselves.

    Beyond that, there was no other intention or agenda offered nor claimed.
Copyright was not possible because it was a new generic term and as such was
available for all to use and employ. It created a fire storm of interpretation
and meaning by others. It is embedded in the global culture and economy
at this point and all other discussion is moot. For better or worse, it was a
word and nothing more. It had a beginning in the simple attempt to describe
what I thought might be a contribution to the great lexicon of printmaking
nomenclature. I have never deviated from that original purpose.

Jack Duganne



 

 
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 12:36:54 pm by Garnick »
Logged
Gary N.
"My memory isn't what it used to be. As a matter of fact it never was." (gan)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20646
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #77 on: November 19, 2017, 01:32:24 pm »

Quote
I coined the term Giclée back in 1989 and used it to describe a print for an
artist who was having her first show of ink jet prints done on an IRIS
printer.
Jack Duganne


And yet, if we examine the history here, wouldn't he be at Nash Editions at this time?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #78 on: November 19, 2017, 05:14:04 pm »

Quite a thread to read at a single slouch, though I did get up once to go pee.

At the end of it all, there's (to me) an unavoidable conclusion to be drawn, which I suppose is a logical place to draw a conclusion. Simply: it shows photography is really just a bastard child within the arts. It can't have the value of a painting, a sculpture, a drawing or any other unique creation because of its obvious advantage/disadvantage of infinite reproducibility.

That's it's enormous Achillean heel; short of destroying or, better yet, preserving the original negative in a block of plastic for all the world to see, it can never overcome that drawback. Which makes yet one more reason why digital originals have even less credibility - or would have, were I to want to collect. And even then, how would I know how many prints had really been made before the funeral in Perspex?

Frankly, buying a photographic print as anything other than temporary decoration strikes me as decidedly odd. Collecting, at silly prices, is just, well, silly. Investment it may be, for a few, but it strikes me as a very chancy place to put money I don't have. If I did have it, rest assured it would never ride on a photographic print from anyone.

So there you have it: a conclusion at the beginning, and an old photographer fading gently out into his own vignettte.

Rob

Mark Lindquist

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1596
  • it’s not about the photos we take - it’s the ones we leave
    • LINDQUIST STUDIOS
Re: The future of printing: will we lose our rights?
« Reply #79 on: November 20, 2017, 07:57:06 am »

Quite a thread to read at a single slouch, though I did get up once to go pee.

At the end of it all, there's (to me) an unavoidable conclusion to be drawn, which I suppose is a logical place to draw a conclusion. Simply: it shows photography is really just a bastard child within the arts. It can't have the value of a painting, a sculpture, a drawing or any other unique creation because of its obvious advantage/disadvantage of infinite reproducibility.

That's it's enormous Achillean heel; short of destroying or, better yet, preserving the original negative in a block of plastic for all the world to see, it can never overcome that drawback. Which makes yet one more reason why digital originals have even less credibility - or would have, were I to want to collect. And even then, how would I know how many prints had really been made before the funeral in Perspex?

Frankly, buying a photographic print as anything other than temporary decoration strikes me as decidedly odd. Collecting, at silly prices, is just, well, silly. Investment it may be, for a few, but it strikes me as a very chancy place to put money I don't have. If I did have it, rest assured it would never ride on a photographic print from anyone.

So there you have it: a conclusion at the beginning, and an old photographer fading gently out into his own vignettte.

Rob

Finally, a voice of reason, an opinion that distills the essence of the issue at hand, and eloquently so. 

Yet, the jury is still out.  Consider the plight of musicians competing for viability and respectability in a world once dominated by classical music, orchestras, symphonies and chamber music.  The lowly jazz musician, jazz trios and quartets, eventually giving way to the big band era, found a home, gradually by becoming their own genre.  Then Folk music became its own grass roots musical movement, as did Rock and Roll which has been said “will never die”.  Country, Rap, Electronica, Pop and on and on. 
And so it goes.  Each previous reigning musical power frowning upon the newcomer.  It has always been this way in the arts; the struggle to not only reign supreme, but the requirement for absolutism within the framework of socio, economic, political constructs which inform those so called “higher arts”.

Times do change however.  Witness the Impressionists who railed against the strictness of the Paris Salons.  By becoming their own entity, by sidestepping traditional modes and rules of exhibition, new perceptions, new definitions of art became possible.  From there, eventually a cascade of modernism came about all the way through Abstract Expressionisn, Pop Art, Performance Art through to Post Modernism, each defying the odds and coming into its own, mostly due to exclusionism obstructing growth.

Consider the momentous occasion when the clouds parted and one historical aspect of photographic arts (certain darkroom prints) came into its own.  Also realize that photography is a medium, like drawing and painting and sculpture are.  It is inevitable that photography as a medium will find ( and for all intents and purposes already has) its own.

And as we become more and more advanced in the industrial arts (meaning art/design made by machines, or at very least vision/design actualized by robotic means [printers are robots after all]) i.e., methods of manufacture, including replication, will likely become the rule rather than the exception barring the human race sending itself back to the stone age.

It is when the medium functions in service to vision of certain individuals that strides are made.  I believe there will be a rennaissance of art in America and throughought the world, as a new found freedom  of creativity comes with the inevitable march of machine evolution.  The distinctions between hand made and machine made (robot assist) will become more and more moot, as eventually art and design overtake mediocrity which has been at the heart of much manufacturing of the past.   

Imagine the irony that presently, the state of the art DSLR and mirrorless cameras provide currently, space age technology to be able to capture tens of images per second, and abilities to process data at amazing speed, camera manufacturers in a race for market share of a growing market trying to fullfill demands for faster, better, lighter devices able to produce terrabytes of images, and all the while arts institutions are attempting to control the very output of this avalanche of technology.  Really?

And what happens when controls are put in place?  These venues eventually become outmoded outdated, and eventually obsoleted as people work around obstacles and created new opportunities for themselves.

After all, we all once (many of us who are older) had land lines as the only source of telephone communication.  It was regulated and monopolized.  Now we have our own cell phones.  When was the last time you saw a phone booth?  They are still there, but few and far between now.

These arts organizations can only hold the water back so long, with the current trend to regulate prints.  What folly.  Create machines capable of creating images at light speed, companies in Tron-like competition to outspeed one another, then artists who would limit themselves with absurd labels attempting to pigeon hole the output, and arts institutions from street fairs to museums regulating that output which to me portends to the eventual demise of these institutions.

Photgraphy has already come into its own.  It is here - it is real.  It is hiding in plain sight. Artists are the ones who bring works in every media to the forefront.  And there are a lot of really great image makers today.  Recognition is innevitable.  It just takes time.  It takes fighting for your rights.  Make no mistake.


Logged
Mark Lindquist
http://z3200.com, http://MarkLindquistPhotography.com
Lindquist Studios.com
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up