I'm sorry this doesn't meet your standards, Will.

Also, it's not as if I'm claiming that this article is some magnum opus. It's just a piece I read on the train. I found some interesting parts, so I shared it 🤷‍♀️ I can't defend the places where you'll inevitably find that it falls short.

I'm sorry for all of your frustrations. I think these people are smart enough to be aware of these various genealogies and attuned to technological shift.

That said, this discussion involves some major photographers, curators, and conservators — so I'm pretty sure they know the history, and they just might have something interesting to say, tho perhaps not up to your standards.

Well, then you probably don't want to read this roundtable conversation. I find the discursive genealogy — largely redundant (either bc the issues persist, or because contemporaries are oblivious to precedent debates, or..), but with some new inflections — fascinating.

No, of course it's not new. These things are continually rediscovered. I just picked one (clearly not compelling) quotation from a larger discussion about photography, materiality, and conservation

☺️

My primary fascination was that it was created by these legendary figures in experimental media-making :)

The sole, small flicker of redemption :-)

Oh, god -- you're right: it's Quayside all over again!