The Magic Ink & Disposable Culture

[Ted Harris]

Like, for instance, using M&Ms to paint on the back of recycled postcards, and selling at a gallery for hundreds of dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/us...rtner=homepage

What if the evidence gets 'et ?

[steve_782]

In times past, those photographer's DID care about their photographs lasting. Thus, the Woodburytype, carbon prints, platinum prints, etc. They sought to make photographs that would not fade, and of course some things didn't work out.

Pure speculation. Exactly HOW did they know they were using processes that would be long lasting? Archival testing by Wilhelm? ANSI / ISO standards?

They were using the processes available to them at the time - NOTHING was really know about the longevity of the prints they made at that time. No one did accelerated aging tests, and the processes weren't in use long enough to be able to point at empirical data as proof.

All of the romance you're trying to attribute to the photographers working in certain processes because they valued the durability of their work - is pure projection on your part.

If we want to, we have choices to do better, choices to value durable things that are well made and well researched.

I totally agree. Through my research, testing, and the work process I've developed for my prints, I have far more confidence that my inkjet prints will last longer than any Ilfochrome, Fuji Crystal Archive, or Kodak Endura color print.

On the other hand, many professional photographers I have chatted with on this issue remark that "if it needs a new print in a year - great! more money!" - and because the photos are advertising photos for public display, it's just more money and more work, a living. Afterall, professional does mean "doing it for a living". Seems to me that doing it for a living and doing it well have a place though.

Sounds like a personal integrity problem - not a "disposable culture" problem.

[paulr]

All of the romance you're trying to attribute to the photographers working in certain processes because they valued the durability of their work - is pure projection on your part.

I suspect you're right about this. I wonder when people started thinking about the permanence of materials the way we do now.

So many of the 19th century processes (albumen in particular) have turned out to be preservation nightmares. A lot of the turn-of-the-century work ... the most self-consciously artistic mixed process pictorial work with all the hand coloring ... must be even worse. Considering how late in the 20th century we were before the first photograph was even accepted by an art museum, I wonder when the first real investigations into care and permanence were done.

If I remember right, in painting that there was a lot of lore surrounding certain pigments--which ones would fade, which would last forever, etc.--and that a lot of it turned out to be wrong over the years.

[Greg Miller]

The half life of any electronic media is 15 years. One has to move their data over within that time. I.e, 7 years. One must consider the technological migrations, i.e., migrate beta max to vhs for example. Anything electronic is volital. There is no way to archive images in the electronic environment. One must output to some stable physical environment. Film is archieveable, electronic is not -- unless you make a print. But of course that is a second generatiion.

MW

The beauty of electronic media is you can store mutiple copies of 1st generation quality in multiple locations. So if my house burns down or floods there will still be perfect copies at my parents' house 2,000 miles away.

And it's a natural progression to migrate data. Today's 200GB hard drive will be replaced by a 500 GB hard drive that will be cheaper and faster and more reliable. It will take all of 30 minutes to copy all my files onto the new hard drive. That 500GB hard drive will eventually be replaced by a 1.5 TB hard drive that's even cheaper and faster. If I become important enough (OK - that's a big "if"), there can be 1st generation quality files still in existance 1,000 years from now. No fading or damage from UV light, dust, pollution, fungus,...

[tim atherton]

... just EMP...

[John Kasaian]

Ed K makes an excellent point.

You may speculate on whether or not past photographers cared about how long thier pix would last, and I'm sure several didn't but I think far more did. Especially the Pros who were marketing History. What after all can a person do with a photograph? To preserve the past----what people (especially beloved or other important people) or things looked like! What events transpired and require some pictoral commemoration or record, or realistic illustrations in books. All these challenges were well met by photography. All this drips with History. A right-minded photographer in days past would want prints to last and work with materials that would likely be around for as long as possible, just as serious sculptors in the past have worked with stone and bronze. In those times craftsmanship was valued more just as convience is valued more today.

Only fairly recently have mainstream artists started working in more temporal materials and there is no doubt good reason for doing this---it fits in perfectly with the Post-modernist agenda. The only problem is that there are many who don't subscribe to the Post-modernist view.

I for one, would be quite happy if the Post-modernist sculptures my fair town placed on the downtown pedestrian mall and alongside the freeway would fade away sometime soon!

[Bruce Watson]

It's such a romantic notion to think the photographers of the past were striving mightly to preserve history and that one of their biggest concerns was the archivability of their process and materials. I wish it were true.

Yet, I think that it's just a romantic notion. People used the best tools that had at the time that would help them get the job done. They weighed lots of variables, just like we do today.

Case in point. There's hardly anything more long lasting than a glass plate negative. An amazing substrate, glass won't deteriorate or yellow and it certainly won't loose it's flexibility ;-). There's also hardly any substrates out there heavier or more fragile. And it makes a hell of a contact print too!

So, do you think that pioneers like William Henry Jackson lugged those glass plates to Yellowstone because they worried about their archivability? Do you think that he would have continued to use glass plates much after the advent of nitrate based sheet film? I think it's just amazing how glass was forgotten once roll and sheet film became available. Does anyone want to argue the longevity issues of glass plates vs. nitrate film stock? No? Hmmm... It would be difficult to argue for nitrate I guess.

The fact is, film stock allowed photographers to do more work. It weighed less. It wasn't as fragile. It didn't take up as much space. It didn't cost so much to ship. Etc... It was the best tool available at the time. But it wasn't the most "archival" for sure.

I'm not saying that photographers should discount archival considerations. Far from it. What I'm saying is that photographers should use the best tools they can find for their work. So that they can make some work that's worth archiving.

[tim atherton]

So, do you think that pioneers like William Henry Jackson lugged those glass plates to Yellowstone because they worried about their archivability? Do you think that he would have continued to use glass plates much after the advent of nitrate based sheet film? I think it's just amazing how glass was forgotten once roll and sheet film became available.

not by Atget - he did precisely that...

[Bruce Watson]

not by Atget - he did precisely that...

Whatever. My point is that the vast, vast majority took film as an improvement even though it was clearly less archival.

[paulr]

Whatever. My point is that the vast, vast majority took film as an improvement even though it was clearly less archival.

And I seriously doubt Atget was thinking about permanence when he chose glass. He worked with his outdated materials because they were familiar.

The first human being who seemed to care about Atget's legacy was Dorothea Lange.