Digital BW, The Print

Dear Tyler,

I do appreciate your sensitivity to this subject, and I cannot
summarily dismiss regional attitudes to this subject, because
it is an age-old question that photographic artists seem to be
continually embroiled with and confronted with, when
compared to the singularity of a water colour, oil painting and,
or any other unified medium. My images are not singularities.

I empathize with gifted younger or gifted older first time
photographic artists that might be enticed by an art director¹s
advice to create value added significance to the original by
destroying the original source of the information, such as
the negative, but the decision to complete the task will be
theirs as the artist, and their choice should always be based
upon their own beliefs.

Economics will always filter into the equation for the artist,
whether the determinant factor is imposed by the gallery or
not, and although I try to comprehend the gallery¹s logic for
adding a perceived value, it does not sit well with me because
of the abruptness and finality of that event. My choice to
preserve and protect my originals is just that, it is my own
choice and a choice I seem to enjoy. It is also a discussion
that will probably persist until the end of time too, now that
the digital environment is so firmly entrenched, and where
the quality of digital output rivals or surpasses traditional
methods, every day.

As John would say, we live in a virtual world, but I would
add we live in a virtual world with a profound depth of
digital waste, promoted by several economic models.

Gifted artists, such as yourself, will survive...

jim k






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]