The ex­hi­bi­tion or­ga­nized by the Na­tional Cen­tre of Pho­tog­ra­phy puts on dis­play pho­to­graphic works that rep­re­sent old print­ing tech­niques used in fine art pho­tog­ra­phy in XIX cen­tury: gum-ara­bic pig­ment print, bro­moil, kalo­type, gum print.

The au­thors began their re­search and re­vival of for­got­ten pho­to­graphic print­ing tech­nolo­gies al­ready in 1990s in the New Acad­emy of Fine Arts, a part of A-Ya So­ci­ety since 1994. Dur­ing sev­eral years, the re­search de­part­ment of the Acad­emy re­vived many a noble print­ing method such as cre­ation of com­bined gum-pig­ment prints, chi­rotypes, car­bon prints, oil prints, as well as print­ing at Savrasov’s method or Seri’s method, to name a few. The works of the mem­bers of New Acad­emy are well known in Rus­sia and abroad. Many works in the ex­hi­bi­tion have been ear­lier ex­hib­ited in the State Russ­ian Mu­seum, Tretyakov Gallery and a num­ber of large Eu­ro­pean mu­se­ums.

Noble Print­ing Tech­niques

When speak­ing of old pho­tographs, one re­mem­bers only the fine nu­ances of light and shadow. Some­how, old pho­tog­ra­phy al­ways brings to mind this fine and el­e­gant qual­ity. I rec­ol­lect the first time I saw pho­tographs cre­ated with the use of noble print­ing tech­niques. These were the works of Vas­siliy Ulitin at Moscow-Paris ex­hi­bi­tion at Pushkin Mu­seum in 1981. After the rigid con­struc­tivism of Rod­chenko I was mes­mer­ized with the in­de­fin­able struc­ture of land­scape with fe­male fig­ures. I could not un­der­stand whether it was a draw­ing or a pho­to­graph. In fact, it was an oleo­graph. I mem­o­rized the term, and later on met it again when I came to study pos­i­tive print­ing processes. Some­thing in that pho­to­graph re­minded me of the im­pres­sion­ists’ dis­cov­er­ies in paint­ing: works of Degas and Claude Monet, the sub­tlety of the chang­ing states of land­scape as if touched with the wind of change. The struc­ture of stroke in oleog­ra­phy was rem­i­nis­cent of pointil­lists’ touch, but it was at the same time the kind of stroke that in today’s lan­guages is named ‘pixel’. The pixel that ren­ders dig­i­tal pho­tog­ra­phy dead and cold in noble print­ing tech­niques obeys the will of artists.

I should men­tion the beauty of paper. Linen or cot­ton paper – the dif­fer­ence is minor, but these slight nu­ances be­come very im­por­tant. The finest dif­fer­ences in struc­ture and in light re­flec­tion, the char­ac­ter­is­tics of grain in many ways af­fect the tac­tics and tem­pera­ment of pho­tog­ra­pher. The beauty of paper is very im­por­tant: its mi­cro­scopic struc­tures allow the artist to gen­er­al­ize im­ages or make them very de­tailed, and in this way the noble print­ing tech­niques allow for the fullest ex­pres­sion of the cre­ator’s ideas. Very sig­nif­i­cant is the paint used. No mat­ter whether it is sil­ver mol­e­cules in the shad­ows or pig­ment par­ti­cles united to ren­der the image its tone and de­scend­ing to half-tone. The only thing that is im­por­tant is the artist’s will.

Most pho­tog­ra­phers that have ever taken in­ter­est in the noble print­ing processes had re­ceived art ed­u­ca­tion. As artists, they were in­ter­ested in gen­er­al­iza­tion of the image rather than de­pict­ing many small, un­nec­es­sary, ac­ci­den­tal de­tails. They were search­ing for a way to blur the ex­ist­ing strict bor­der­line be­tween draw­ing and pho­to­graph, be­tween art and sci­ence, in order to bring the artis­tic image to the level of im­por­tance no lesser than sci­en­tific truth. Whereas ini­tially artists tried to de­pict re­al­ity, later with the de­vel­op­ment of tech­nol­ogy they tried to bring the re­al­ity under their own con­trol and fit it to their own artis­tic men­tal­ity. In the time of high tech­nolo­gies, every­one can fol­low in the line of me­dieval al­chemists and, using a wide reper­tory of pro­fes­sional se­crets, find an own de­f­i­n­i­tion of beauty.

An­drey Medvedev