Thanks Josephine - I will follow the debate through your printmaking
list as I find it a fascinating subject.
needless to say, my 'prints' are all housed in my own 'private
collection' :)
Regards
maria
-----Original Message-----
From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Printmaker
Sent: Thursday, 18 April 2002 8:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Dream Project
maria fletcher wrote:
>
> Josephine writes,
>
> "Not the least problem being that anyone with photoshop
> can scan an image, run some filters through it and colour print it;
> and then call themselves an 'artist' and the result a 'print'."
>
> Why is this a problem? I do it all the time :)
I'm chuckling here Maria!
>
> Is it that the use of digital software diallows the use of the title
> 'artist', or is it that in your profession digitially produced media
> is not regarded as artistic?
Its a complex issue, and as I mentioned before, subject of
many a long and intense debate on the printmaking lists.
Better not to go there. In a nutshell, its about the level
of experience, training and ability in image making required
to make a fine art print by traditional methods; as opposed
to the 'monkey see, monkey do' level required to hit the 'print' button.
If you built a house out of lego, would that make you a master builder?
Its also to do with uniqueness and reproduceablity and
people making open ended editions of reproductions of art in other media
(ie posters) and calling them 'prints'.
Of interest is the fact that, as many campuses around the
world are tooling up for digital technology in their art
depts, they are downsizing or discontinuing print studios.
The printmaking academics are all having to go digital to retain street
cred with the funders and to keep their jobs. So the print prizes lately
have been going to fine art prints made using digital technology either
alone, or in combination with, traditional techniques.
>
> It also raises the question, relevant to poetry, of tangible artistic
> products and how they are to be judged. The proliferation of self
> publication through the Internet (as opposed to hard print
> publication) allows many to name themselves 'poets' - this is surely a
> good thing?
I'll be the first to admit I aint no poet (yet)
But your point is a good one. If I do a search on google for art, it
doesnt differentiate the good stuff from the rubbish, it doesnt have
taste or critical expertise programmed in. So the viewer has to sift for
themselves. Its the same in poetry, isn't it?
best
Josie
|