i see where you are coming from.
as a student of art and architecture, former gallery owner, i don't think it is important that someone knows the "roots"
that you think are important. i understand why you are upset because the folks you have
canonized aren't seen as important in the newer "wannabes" .
to be honest a lot of the people who have been canonized as fine art photographers aren't really important to me either ...
i know about people, artists, painters, architects &c who are important to me, and while i know who some of the others are
i haven't made it a rule to "know" them. it isn't hard to see their influence though, 90-95% of the photographers
who claim to be "fine art photographers" seem to be copyists ... copying the style of their favorite early photographer ...
they really aren't doing much new, or growing at all, just searching for tripod holes ...
as for archival method and digital image making, well, the field is wide open ... there is no such thing
as an arcival digital ink print, or file, unless it was an internegative and an arcane process was created in the end.
i don't really care what wilhelm suggests are archival because they really aren't, just ask people whose work
has all turned cyan ...
Last edited by jnanian; 03-13-2013 at 09:55 PM. Click to view previous post history.