Is Inkjet art? (was: new photo giclee show)
Royce Bair
under the topic of "New Photo Giclee Show" about whether inkjet art is
now starting to become "archival", compared to other mediums. I'm
reposting some of my thoughts under this new subject (Is inkjet art?),
so that others might take notice of what I think is an important topic.
To start with, I'd like to invite you to visit our "Photo Giclee Show"
in Salt Lake City, Utah, or online.
This show features the work of 27 photographers using a giclee-type
print process. The show runs through April 12, 1999, and is located on
307 West 200 South, in the Aperture Photo Gallery.
Giclee (zhee-CLAY) n. From the French ("a spraying or squirting of
ink") 1. A fine art ink jet print made from an Iris printer. 2. Any
ink jet type print made to fine art standards.
In other words, "giclee" is just a fancy word for "inkjet". So, the
question might be asked:
Is inkjet art?
For some photographers, a high-quality inkjet print is just another
medium to faithfully reproduce what they see on film or saw through the
camera lens. Digital imaging has allowed the photographic artist to
enhance or manipulate his images, and inkjet enables those improvements
to be transferred to a photographic-like print.
Other photographic artists desire to use the giclee as another tool of
expression. They see the giclee as an additional medium or "canvas" for
them to show their vision or perspective of the world.
With its many combinations of ink and media (i.e. watercolor papers and
canvas), some giclee prints can take on a three-dimensional quality that
is unlike any photographic process. This added depth has drawn many
artists and art buyers to the giclee.
"Added depth" is apparent in many of the prints in this show. A good
example is the print by Bill Dean called, "A Day in December". Not only
does the texture of the watercolor paper and its torn edges add
dimension to the image, but notice how the ink has bled and "washed" in
many areas — producing an even greater feeling of peace, tranquility or
restfulness. (Unfortunately, this image is not online at our Web site,
nor would it be possible to see the effects I'm describing over the Web
-- you've just got to see the print in person.)
Many of the prints in this exhibit were printed on the Iris printer, a
high-end, giclee industry standard. Most of the balance were printed on
desktop inkjet printers. Some, like the "Cottonwood in Sunrise Fog" and
"A Day in December" were desktop prints using archival inks and papers
that exceed the longevity of most color photographic processes, and even
rival some silver prints. The ability to produce giclee-quality prints
from the desktop allows the photographic artist even greater control
over the final print.
As a method of producing limited edition prints, the giclee excels over
the four-color reproduction process. The giclee is not only capable of
reproducing a much wider gamut of colors and tones, but it can do it on
a greater variety of papers and substrates. And in most instances, the
giclee inks will last longer, without noticeable fading, than the
standard process inks used on most limited edition prints.
Royce Bair, Director
ro...@tssphoto.com
Aperture Photo Gallery <http://www.tssphoto.com/art.html>
The Stock Solution (Archival, fine art & photo-realistic solutions for
inkjet printing)
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/
David Dyer-Bennet
>Many of the prints in this exhibit were printed on the Iris printer, a
>high-end, giclee industry standard. Most of the balance were printed on
>desktop inkjet printers. Some, like the "Cottonwood in Sunrise Fog" and
>"A Day in December" were desktop prints using archival inks and papers
>that exceed the longevity of most color photographic processes, and even
>rival some silver prints. The ability to produce giclee-quality prints
>from the desktop allows the photographic artist even greater control
>over the final print.
>As a method of producing limited edition prints, the giclee excels over
>the four-color reproduction process. The giclee is not only capable of
>reproducing a much wider gamut of colors and tones, but it can do it on
>a greater variety of papers and substrates. And in most instances, the
>giclee inks will last longer, without noticeable fading, than the
>standard process inks used on most limited edition prints.
I've been doing most of my printing on inkject for the last couple of
years. My impression is that the current desktop printers are not
nearly as archival as you seem to indicate; hope you're right and I'm
wrong! Are there newsgroups or websites or mailing lists of people
working with these new technologies? I'd like to connect up a bit
more.
--
David Dyer-Bennet d...@ddb.com
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
David Ellis
>high-end, giclee industry standard. Most of the balance were printed on
>desktop inkjet printers. Some, like the "Cottonwood in Sunrise Fog" and
>"A Day in December" were desktop prints using archival inks and papers
>that exceed the longevity of most color photographic processes, and even
>rival some silver prints. The ability to produce giclee-quality prints
>from the desktop allows the photographic artist even greater control
>over the final print.
>
>As a method of producing limited edition prints, the giclee excels over
>the four-color reproduction process. The giclee is not only capable of
>reproducing a much wider gamut of colors and tones, but it can do it on
>a greater variety of papers and substrates. And in most instances, the
>giclee inks will last longer, without noticeable fading, than the
>standard process inks used on most limited edition prints.
>
>ro...@tssphoto.com
>Aperture Photo Gallery <http://www.tssphoto.com/art.html>
>The Stock Solution (Archival, fine art & photo-realistic solutions for
>inkjet printing)
>http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/
>
>
I've used inkjets since the Hewlett-Packard Paintjet XL (180dpi version)
appeared and my experience is that the colors fade badly when a print is
hung on the wall at my house, not even in direct daylight. After two
months the color shift is noticeable; after six months the colors are
badly faded; in a year they're unrecognizable. I'd don't call this
archival. Stored in the dark, the colors remain not noticeably changed
for years.
I've tried hanging with and without a glass covering, with shellac and
other substances as coatings. Nothing I've discovered prevents fade of
these dye-based inks. Where do you buy giclee "archival inks" in
cartridges for commonplace inkjet printers?
--Dave
Keith Clark
David Ellis wrote:
> Where do you buy giclee "archival inks" in
> cartridges for commonplace inkjet printers?
> --Dave
Try the links at the Wilhelm Research site:
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/Sources_of_Supply/sources_of_supply.html
I've heard good things about Bulldog.
Someone in another thread mentioned ink oxidation as a factor in fading.
While I won't dispute that, media choice is critical as it is with real photo
prints. I use media with as close to neutral PH as possible.
Edward Bigelow
an "artist".
And always difficult between immersive mediums where the "applier" works
directly on a material manually (say watercolor) and the intangible mediums
where the work is mechanical and the image selection, perspective, etc. is
in the eye of the beholder and the minimal finger to the shutter or mouse.
(as in Photography, digital or analog).
Further, an inkjet (Giclee, Tintestrahl, etc.) or laser printer can output
relatively consistant duplicates for a long time. And assuming "archival"
becomes meaningful, limiting and numbering an edition becomes a esoteric
commercial excercise. Pricing becomes an interesting excercise.
But pricing, public exposure and creating a demand would seem to be some
keys to defining "art".
Ed
Royce Bair wrote:
> We've had a lot of discussion in the "rec.photo.technique.art" newsgroup
> under the topic of "New Photo Giclee Show" about whether inkjet art is
> now starting to become "archival", compared to other mediums. I'm
> reposting some of my thoughts under this new subject (Is inkjet art?),
> so that others might take notice of what I think is an important topic.
>
snip...........................................
Keith Clark
Edward Bigelow wrote:
> Defining "art" is as problematical as the craft producer calling themselves
> an "artist".
>
> And always difficult between immersive mediums where the "applier" works
> directly on a material manually (say watercolor) and the intangible mediums
> where the work is mechanical and the image selection, perspective, etc. is
> in the eye of the beholder and the minimal finger to the shutter or mouse.
> (as in Photography, digital or analog).
>
So are you now saying photography is not art because someone can click a
shutter?
Or the Photoshop work which often takes advanced knowledge is not art because
it's done on a glowing screen?
Oh boy, let the flames begin!
Edward Bigelow
from the "art" label.
I am vitally interested in digital imaging and have produced "art" photography
for decades. "Art" photography as opposed to "commercial" photography, which I've
also produced. Is commisioned and non-commisioned a better label than the
art/commercial dichotomy, for isn't art also commercial.
Historically it was thought photography would replace other graphic reproductive
techniques. It didn't. Now there is a similar dialogue about digital imaging.
In the meantime photography (at c. 150 years old) is just coming into it's own in
SOME museums and galleries. And there seems to be a broad suspicion about where
images from digital output fit in.
Particularly when they use a color medium which often fade so readily.
Yet some outstanding shrink-wrap or framed Canon Copier color images stand for
months in outdoor boutique sales bins without fading, where almost no other
artwork would be shown. They still sell for very little over the cost of
framing.
Perhaps there are so many contemporary images in the public, and the output of so
much digital imaging is almost indistinguishable from magazine images that the
perceived value of digital images is discounted...Some use a technique to make a
work appear more "individual" such as printing on canvas (to create a virtual
painting?) or to hand-tint a monochrome image, as in conventional photography.
I also think this is a topic for lively discussion.
Ed
Keith Clark
I like your comment on commercial vs non-commercial. Some of the most inspiring
"Photoshop" work I've seen has come from commercial ad studios. (Now, that one will
get *me* flamed! (laughing ;>))
To expand on that in a small way, you said something in your other post about art
being in the eye of the beholder. Isn't that what it's all about?
Someone mentioned shooting Polaroids...a famous dog photographer produced runaway
best selling coffee table books using 16x20 Polaroid's, if I remember right.
There's a flower photographer selling polaroid transfers of her flower photos, and
they're showing up -everywhere-. I even saw some reproduced on archival photo albums
at Costco of all places. Was it art? I thought so...they were beautifully produced.
Sure, they were printed by offset press, and so not in the same league as an original
oil painting, but thousands of people will buy them in large part due to the
beautiful artistic design...
I think many, many things can be art. They're just not all in the same categories,
maybe.
Cheers,
Keith
Blue Moon
>Perhaps there are so many contemporary images in the public, and the output of
so
>much digital imaging is almost indistinguishable from magazine images that
the
>perceived value of digital images is discounted...Some use a technique to make
a
>work appear more "individual" such as printing on canvas (to create a virtual
>painting?) or to hand-tint a monochrome image, as in conventional photography.
>
>I also think this is a topic for lively discussion.
There is a way around making prints without using the commercial printing
technology. If you have access to a press -- either litho or intaglio --
you can convert your digital images to printing plates and use inks
that ARE archival. The prints will be hand-pulled and labor
intensive but the digital can be a great tool for today's art printmakers.
The main thing is that you will have a 'fine art' print as opposed to
a commercially produced one.
Edward Bigelow
Hmm. I enjoy much of the dynamite commercial art I see, and lament that it is not really
considered part of the fine art mix.
Most commercial artists I know DO their own "fine art" but of course it not a way to make
a living. And after being commissioned to paint (photograph) a disk drive for $1,000 or
2, it's hard to put another 40x60 acrylic into the garage storage, or take the time to
join the cheese & wine circuit and the issues of fine art marketting.
To me, one of the interesting issues is that as photography became more accessable (more
automatic, better tools, dichroic heads, color meters, etc) more folks got into the
business. In this area (bay area, Calif.) it is now VERY competitive. It is a dynamically
changing business.
Similarly as imaging becomes more accessable, with better digicams, excellect printers
(good inks), it makes composition and the desire to communicate accessable to all.
Instant art?? Maybe, but it's not clear where the markets will be.
Ed
Keith Clark wrote:
> > Perhaps there are so many contemporary images in the public, and the output of so
> > much digital imaging is almost indistinguishable from magazine images that the
> > perceived value of digital images is discounted...Some use a technique to make a
> > work appear more "individual" such as printing on canvas (to create a virtual
> > painting?) or to hand-tint a monochrome image, as in conventional photography.
> >
> > I also think this is a topic for lively discussion.
> >
Edward Bigelow
Jeffrey Novick
mean? Nothing, really. It is an old holdover from many years ago that academics dreamed up
and art dealers exploited. It has the ring of elite-ism and snobbery. Any artist that
claims that he or she is a 'fine art' artist arouses my suspicion immediately.
Jeff
T. L. & J. James
Although I share your distaste for elitism and snobbery, I still think we need a term for
work of extraordinary quality and creativity. If we don't use "fine art," we'll find another
term just as susceptible to abuse. Since this is a photography news group, I suggest folks
refer to photography and prints rather than art. Whether or not something is art will be sorted
out over the long haul.
Terry James
Jeffrey Novick wrote:
> Why do you continue to use this archaic term 'Fine Art'? Think about it. What does it
> mean? Nothing, really. It is an old holdover from many years ago that academics dreamed up
> and art dealers exploited. It has the ring of elite-ism and snobbery. Any artist that
> claims that he or she is a 'fine art' artist arouses my suspicion immediately.
>
> Jeff
>
> Edward Bigelow wrote:
>
> > Hi Keith...
> > Hmm. I enjoy much of the dynamite commercial art I see, and lament that it is not really
> > considered part of the fine art mix....<snip>
> > Ed
--
*****************************************************************
Joan/Terry James, Box 47, Riverport, Nova Scotia, Canada, B0J 2W0
Tel: (902)766-4764 Fax: (902)766-4252
E-mail: lhp....@ns.sympatico.ca
shooter dan
>
>> Why do you continue to use this archaic term 'Fine Art'?
So, Jeffrey, what terms do you use in referring to your images?
tarnished silver on a processed cellulose medium?
metal on paper?
Just some junk I photographed?
Pictures from the drug store?
Fine art as a term has nothing wrong with it. As for "archival", with
the quality of so many images shown, the sooner it fades the better off the
world will be.
dan smith
Marvin Margoshes
equivalent to asking if brush is art. Inkjet printing is a medium that can
be explored by creative artists.
Beakman
: Why do you continue to use this archaic term 'Fine Art'? Think about it.
: What does it mean? Nothing, really. It is an old holdover from many
: years ago that academics dreamed up and art dealers exploited. It has the
: ring of elite-ism and snobbery. Any artist that claims that he or she is
: a 'fine art' artist arouses my suspicion immediately.
Let's say you're one of these "fine art" photographers and you want to
make a business card which using a word or two explains what you do.
What do you put on the card?
"Photographer" ? People will call yuo to do their weddings.
"Artist" ? A bit too general, don't you think?
"Art Photographer" ? This has two possible connotations - 1) you
photograph works of art, or 2) that your work is very avant-garde and
experimental. I understand that these are misconceptions on the part of
the reader, but that is how our lexicon has developed. People might not
think of Ansel Adams as an "art photographer", but could easily think of
him as a "fine art photographer" -- the "fine" part commonly added to
mean "art photography including traditional subjects". I'm not saying
it's right, that's just the way it is. Any hang-ups you have about the
words are therefore your own.
David
--
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
David Fokos
bea...@netcom.com
______________________________________________________________________________
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Marilyn
>
> >Jeffrey Novick wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you continue to use this archaic term 'Fine Art'?
>
>
> tarnished silver on a processed cellulose medium?
>
> metal on paper?
>
> Just some junk I photographed?
>
> Pictures from the drug store?
>
> Fine art as a term has nothing wrong with it. As for "archival", with
> the quality of so many images shown, the sooner it fades the better off the
> world will be.
>
> dan smith
Are sand paintings fine art? are tibetan mandalas fine art?
There is ephemeral fine art and archival fine art.
Fine art: any art that pleases me
Marilyn
Jeffrey Novick
painters like Dali, Picasso, etc. didn't call themselves 'fine art painters'.
I still say it is an absurd term. I know many very talented photographers that
would laugh if you tried to put this label on them. We do have to name what we
do. However, my objection to 'fine art' is that it has no meaning. If you say
I am a photographer, then you produce photos. If you want to go further and
say I am a photographer specializing in nudes, landscapes, architecture,
fashion, etc., this means something. Since the term 'art' is so subjective to
begin with, let someone else worry if it is 'art' or not. I am sure that
photographers that call themselves 'fine art photographers' don't always
produce photos that many would consider 'art'.
The issue of archivalness has little to do with the creation of art, but, of
course, it is an important technical consideration which I am very interested
in.
Jeff
shooter dan wrote:
> >Jeffrey Novick wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you continue to use this archaic term 'Fine Art'?
>
Jeffrey Novick
'Photographer' on their business collateral. If someone calls for weddings, you
might refer them to a friend, or, explain that you don't do weddings. Better to
have someone call you for something than no one call you at all.
Jeff
Beakman wrote:
> Jeffrey Novick (jno...@sirius.com) wrote:
>
> : Why do you continue to use this archaic term 'Fine Art'? Think about it.
> : What does it mean? Nothing, really. It is an old holdover from many
> : years ago that academics dreamed up and art dealers exploited. It has the
> : ring of elite-ism and snobbery. Any artist that claims that he or she is
> : a 'fine art' artist arouses my suspicion immediately.
>
Keith Clark
"T. L. & J. James" wrote:
> Jeff:
> Although I share your distaste for elitism and snobbery, I still think we need a term for
> work of extraordinary quality and creativity. If we don't use "fine art," we'll find another
> term just as susceptible to abuse. Since this is a photography news group, I suggest folks
> refer to photography and prints rather than art. Whether or not something is art will be sorted
> out over the long haul.
> Terry James
>
> Jeffrey Novick wrote:
>
> > Why do you continue to use this archaic term 'Fine Art'? Think about it. What does it
> > mean? Nothing, really. It is an old holdover from many years ago that academics dreamed up
> > and art dealers exploited. It has the ring of elite-ism and snobbery. Any artist that
> > claims that he or she is a 'fine art' artist arouses my suspicion immediately.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Edward Bigelow wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Keith...
> > > Hmm. I enjoy much of the dynamite commercial art I see, and lament that it is not really
> > > considered part of the fine art mix....<snip>
> > > Ed
>
> --
> *****************************************************************
> Joan/Terry James, Box 47, Riverport, Nova Scotia, Canada, B0J 2W0
> Tel: (902)766-4764 Fax: (902)766-4252
> E-mail: lhp....@ns.sympatico.ca
I don't know about the rest of you, but any more, these days, "fine art" seems to the term for what
most people consider bizarre and even distasteful. Don't get me wrong, I love unusual and creative
art. I love the works of Monet, Picasso, Escher, those are "fine artists" to me.
Can ink jets produce fine art? Sure, why not? Can they produce one of a kind? Sure. Destroy the
file. ;>
Personally, I like printing on very heavy watercolor media (140#) with manipulated images, and then
taking a wet paintbrush to them! I can guarantee that no two done that way would ever be the same!
It may or may not be "fine art" but it's fun and rewarding, and sometimes even other people like
them. ;>
Cheers,
Keith
http://www.clarkphoto.com/
Tudesco Wilkerson
original meaning or intent it may have had to begin with. For instance,
without looking too carefully, a casual stroll through the Yellow Pages
reveals the following phrases used in commercial advertising:
Fine Dining Fine porcelain repairs
Fine Costume Designer Fine Antiques
Fine Footwear Fine Cuisine
Fine Watches Fine Automobiles
Fine Upholstery Fabrics Fine Pianos
Fine Furniture Fine Wines
Fine Jewelry Fine Menswear
Fine Art Fine Liquors
Fine Bagels
And my personal favorite from a store's marquee, "Fine Burgers"! With so
many 'Fine' things around I can't help but thinking we're all living in
Pleasantville. ;-)
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:13:54 -0800, Jeffrey Novick <jno...@sirius.com>:
>Why do you continue to use this archaic term 'Fine Art'? Think about it. What does it
>mean? Nothing, really. It is an old holdover from many years ago that academics dreamed up
>and art dealers exploited. It has the ring of elite-ism and snobbery. Any artist that
>claims that he or she is a 'fine art' artist arouses my suspicion immediately.
[snipped for brevity]
paolo beneforti
Jeffrey Novick
>The issue of archivalness has little to do with the creation of art, but,
of
>course, it is an important technical consideration which I am very
interested
>in.
>
I'm very interested too, for reproducibility of art and new techs make this
topic central, I think. (W. Benjamin said 60 years ago things still useful
about it, IMHO)
saluti
p.b.
je...@my-dejanews.com
Jeffrey Novick <jno...@sirius.com> wrote:
> Most people that I know that make a living with photography use 'Photography'
or
> 'Photographer' on their business collateral.
Well there's the first part of your problem. Most people doing fine art
photography aren't making a living at it. Most have careers far more like
Ralph Eugene Meatyard's, and he was successful.
>If someone calls for weddings, you
> might refer them to a friend, or, explain that you don't do weddings. Better
to
> have someone call you for something than no one call you at all.
Absolutely not. The only reason I want someone to call me (and I use a cell
phone for my business, calls cost me) is if they want to buy a print. And I
have had the experience of handing out my current card (which does say just
"Photographer") and getting calls for portraits and pet photos. I won't make
that mistake again.
Jeff
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Daniel Pead
writes
>nd I
>have had the experience of handing out my current card (which does say just
>"Photographer") and getting calls for portraits and pet photos.
Hey, don't knock it - look at Leonardo Da Vinci... :-)
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Olympus C1400L examples on http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/etcetera/
David Dyer-Bennet
Yes, of course. I really think the person who posted the original
question in that form was doing a little trolling.
However, that very question HAS been asked, even quite recently, about
photography. So it's not *completely* crazy.
The answer, of course, is that no medium is art, or not-art. Some
pieces of work are art, others are not. Which are which is a matter
of personal judgement, not objective fact.
Marvin Margoshes
>"Marvin Margoshes" <phys...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>I've been confused by this thread. Asking if inkjet is art seems to be
>>equivalent to asking if brush is art. Inkjet printing is a medium that
can
>>be explored by creative artists.
>
>Yes, of course. I really think the person who posted the original
>question in that form was doing a little trolling.
>
>However, that very question HAS been asked, even quite recently, about
>photography. So it's not *completely* crazy.
>
>The answer, of course, is that no medium is art, or not-art. Some
>pieces of work are art, others are not. Which are which is a matter
>of personal judgement, not objective fact.
Some years back, the paint started to peel off my used Mercury. She fond a
can of Rustoleum in the garage and painted the bare metal parts of the car.
Since she is an (amateur) artst, and art is what an artist does, we all
agreed that she had created a work of art.
David Redwine
art, sometimes just documentation of events and sometimes both.
David Redwine
Oly 620L, DC-50 and DC20 photos at:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=11576
David Dyer-Bennet wrote in message ...
.
>
>The answer, of course, is that no medium is art, or not-art. Some
>pieces of work are art, others are not. Which are which is a
matter
>of personal judgement, not objective fact.
>
>
>
>
Daniel Pead
<d_re...@voyager.net> writes
>Photography is difficult in this respect because it is sometimes
>art, sometimes just documentation of events and sometimes both.
How is that different from painting, drawing, sculpture or writing?
Exactly the same sort of argument could be levelled at mapmaking,
technical illustration, industrial modelmaking, journalism etc.
Take mapmaking - it ranges from maps generated by computer directly from
GPS data through the London Tube Map to the Mappamundi. Anybody care to
draw the line where the art starts?
Charlz
the stance of " if you do digital grapics you can't be considered an artist
unless you were first an artist in a traditional medium" I do not consider
myself an artist but I found this to be offensive... I wonder if finger
painting cavemen said the same thing about the first caveman to use a stick to
draw with. :P All a matter of perspective I guess
Charlz
In article <hhx1IHAB...@octpen.demon.co.uk>, d...@octpen.demon.co.uk
says...
Jeffrey Novick
allows me to see or feel something from a different perspective other than
the literal. What is unique is the interpretation that the artist gives
their work. That usually means a 'mutation' of reality that symbolizes
something. I think there are many very good photographers who are capable
of beautiful photos, but, they don't create art. Photojournalism, IMO is
not art. It's not supposed to be art. Maybe it is 'artful' at times, but
that is not it's goal. For me, art is about something that is created from
within and forces itself on a particular medium through a conscious
construct. Otherwise, it's happy accidents and whatever else occasionally
gets stumbled upon.
Digital artists are like every other kind of artist. To say what some of
them create is not art in foolish. Just look at some of the work that is
around. Check out some of the sites on PDN's gallery. I do agree that the
ouput is a huge concern. Everyone wants their work to last and to be able
to provide to the public something of quality. We are in a very new age
where some of the ground has not been broken. But, I believe that the
digital artist will emerge with a lot of credibility as they have already
changed the way a lot of 'art' is being looked at and created.
Jeff
William Bell
really be bothered if what they do is considered art, craft or commerce
as they are too busy doing whatever it is they do. "Artist" labels are
for folks at the end of their career.
Debating that the specific method of output has even one iota of
validity as to whether something is "art" or not is just silly. Inkjet
output may not be archival, but lots of art isn't. Is Christo not an
artist but a tailor because his pieces don't hold up like a bronze
statue?
B
dmterp
Hi William,
I guess you haven't read any of the posts in this newsgroup. If you
had, you would realize that what you posted below is totally off topic
and should never have been posted here.
Readers here are interested in the technical side of photography and
how to get good pictures with their investments in equipment and
study.
Try another newsgroup, you will get a better response, perhaps even
from some of the people who post here. It's just that they will be in
a different frame of mind.
In other words, YOU are off post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don
********************************************
mdeli
wrote:
>Debating that the specific method of output has even one iota of
>validity as to whether something is "art" or not is just silly. Inkjet
>output may not be archival, but lots of art isn't. Is Christo not an
>artist but a tailor because his pieces don't hold up like a bronze
>statue?
He's defininitly a top bullshit artist. Neither his output or his
bullshit is archival, but lots of bullshit isn't
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
David Chien
In any case, several million to several billion with today's experimental
high-energy beam generators.
But this 'output' will cost you plenty of cash to get one made ;)
d =)
Rudy Garcia
>
> Two companies, Varian and ETEC, have produced electron-
> beam lithography machines that could probably lay down a
> shitload of dots on the head of a pin. I think the resolution was
> around a micron or so. But monochrome only ;-)
>
> You can probably pick up one of those babies, used, for
> a couple of million bucks.
>
>
> rafe b.
The E-beam lithography systems can lay down feature sizes in the 0.15
microns range.
For real small stuff, try an atomic force microscope, such as the one
developed by IBM. These babies can resolve down to a single atom!
--
Use address below for Email replies. Address on Header is bogus to defeat AutoSPAM.
ru...@jps.net
________________________________
Rudy Garcia
The answers I have found have just served to raise a whole new set
of questions. In some ways I am as confused as ever, but I believe
I am confused on a much higher level and about more important things.
Author unknown