[Leica] Re: Archival art

[LRZeitlin@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/3/04 8:25:42 AM, Mark writes:

<< Oil vs acrylic I'd say a better analogy.

They both make regular looking pictures but the acrylic is more instant in
and out high tech convenience. And somehow perhaps lacks depth and guts.
And which will be falling off the canvas in sheets in 50 years?
 >>

Mark,

The durability of images is a mixed blessing. I have a constant argument with 
my wife, the painter, that the use of archival material is self defeating. 
Bear in mind that wall space in museums and galleries is limited. Long life of 
paintings or photos diminishes your opportunity to have paintings hung or 
photos exhibited. It puts you in competition for a limited resource not only with 
your contemporaries, but with every artist or photographer who's original works 
survive. My wife's paintings get hung in galleries but I remind her that if 
everyone's art work would self destruct after ten years or so, she would have a 
far greater chance of being exhibited.

Interestingly, in the fine art world, it is only the originals that are so 
cherished. Copies, no matter how faithful, don't count. If the original oil and 
canvas were designed to vanish in a puff of smoke after a limited time, say 20 
years, competition with artists of previous generations would be eliminated. 
Now I'm not for destroying the images themselves, only the media. Faithful 
reproductions could be made using photographic or electronic means and preserved 
for the ages. 

We photographers have it easier. As long as a photograph is printed from an 
original negative, the age doesn't matter as much. And, of course, there is an 
unlimited market for photos used in more transient media like magazines, 
books, etc.

Larry Z
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html