Hi, Thursday, June 19, 2003, 8:40:23 PM, you wrote:
> Bob Walkden wrote: >> Not so. You bandy the word photograph about just as much as the rest >> of us, without specifying which type of photograph you mean. > When people want to use "photograph" for "inkjet prints". Then you have > to invent a new term for "photograph" as to differentiate it from > "inkjet print". We start to use abominations like "silver halide > opto-chemicaly produced photographs". I think you're quite wrong. People use 'photograph' for pictures taken with a camera of some sort. I have a daguerreotype here at home, and people sometimes ask 'what kind of photograph is that?', in which case I explain that it's a daguerreotype. In years to come perhaps people will look at some of my silver halide prints, which are also perfectly good photographs, and ask 'what kind of photograph is that?'. And I will explain how it differs from the 'normal' photographs of the future. When I look at photographs in galleries the labels now frequently tell me, because we are in a time of transition, what the medium is. For instance, I was at a Salgado exhibition and the labels told me whether the photographs - for that's what they all were - were silver halide, Iris, or some other process. Similarly when I look at paintings - for that's what they all are - the labels tell me whether I'm looking at water colours, ink & wash, acrylic, oil, elephant dung or whatever. It's you who is mangling the language, by trying to co-opt the generic term so that it can only be used for one specific type. Claiming that slides are not photographs, for example, is simply ludicrous. It's like saying you can only use the word 'mammal' for kangaroos, and you can't use it to describe possums, horses and bats, because if you did you'd have to start using abominations like "Large bouncy jerbil with pouch. Occasionally boxes". >> This rather reminds me of the 11+ exam that British children had to >> take to decide whether we went to a school that taught Latin or one >> that taught metalwork: > Huh ? I thought it was all about having fun with the coeds. well, that too, of course. I've got the photographs to prove it <g>. -- Cheers, Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
