Posted by Peter Gallagher (213.84.198.104) on October 01, 2004 at 22:41:41:
In Reply to: Re: Toning posted by Philip on October 01, 2004 at 08:20:00:
Hi Philip,
I have to agree with you: It would be nice to think we can rely on the expertise of chemists - but how can you tell what long-term effects will be without an actual test-period? History offers us depressing evidence that we don't always know what we are doing - consider DDT etc ...
The long and the short of it is that it's best left to experts, anyway, I think.
Even though the article I mentioned was very well explained, I think it would take a lot of guts (or perhaps stupidity?) to attempt actually "bleaching" a print oneself and I, for one, would be extremely hesitant about.
Even if I "only" ruined a "cheap and unimportant" print, I would be very unhappy about my own personal loss, even if the world would not be a lesser place without my print :-)
Now where did I leave that bucket of caustic soda ? .... LOL!
But seriously, I think there's also the issue of an important print actually requiring treatment in order to preserve it. In which case I feel it should be done by an expert. And when a private collector possesses such a print but can't afford the costs of restoration, I feel a rare and important piece of heritage belongs in the hands of a museum - which hopefully would have the means and/or at least the funds to preserve it.
Now, if only I had a few such prints "lying around" ... :-P :-)
And then: where does one draw the line? I recall somebody mentioning $200 restoration on a $100 print - no further discussion required. But a rare master's print? Or a relatively unknown student whose prints were not spectacular art as such - BUT who played a significant historical role in the whole story ...? Diffucilt, I think.
regards,
Peter