 |
 |
And soakable. Properly stored it's a pretty good medium. And changing technology won't make it unreadable. I recently got a close look at a first folio. Still looks pretty good, tho the author clearly didn't know how to spell. -----Original Message----- >From: Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Aug 30, 2016 11:40 AM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Have any of you prepared for posthumous recognition? > >Yes, paper's durable but flammable. Some inks are less lasting than others. I favour the Chinese who have a longer tradition. > > >> On 30 Aug 2016, at 16:32, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Acid-free paper, the kind we've all used except in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is remarkably durable. Palm leaves, fortunately, don't fit in my printer. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Aug 30, 2016 8:55 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Have any of you prepared for posthumous recognition? >>> >>> Aere perennius apart, decay happens to all material works, and devastatingly to manuscripts, just one example being the fate of classical Tamil poetry on insect-riddled palm-leaf. >>> I thought of collage also because it might be considered the most ephemeral of media often composed out of scraps. I can't find it now but there's an essay on the conservation of Kurt Scwitters's collages. Those recovered by his son from a mildewed chest in Norway were in surprisingly good condition. With his proximity to Dada you might expect him to be more knockabout with regard to durability, but he knew the virtues of good materials. >>> >>> (Sport for me is in a different zone, not that that matters. But actually the recordings let you see more than the spectator or even the umpire or referee can. What you say is true of acting - televised versions of play performances are often weirdly hollow. We may be grateful some of them exist as partial records but they're not the same thing at all.) >>> >>> >>>