rafeb wrote: To suppose that one's work will bring pleasure to > some viewer, fifty years from now, requires a bit > of ego on the part of the artist. That's not > necessarily a bad thing, but I'm honest enough > to admit that not all my work is deserving of > such treatment. Other folks with larger egos may > think differently, of course. > > rafe b. > I hear what you're saying, and am far from thinking that my own work is history-making. But there's another angle: We are now at the beginning of a new medium, not exactly as photography was in 1839, because now we have the whole history of photography to inform us, but similar in that we're using a new set of tools. And we don't know how this beginning of inkjet printing will be valued fifty-plus years from now. My guess is that somebody's prints will survive, and be valued. Photographic glass plates were at one time used in greenhouses, and destroyed. Lots of early movie reels were thrown away. Somebody would be pouring over them now if they had them. What I'm saying is that we may not be the best judges of the value of our work. Certainly we will not be the only judges, if our work survives. James Irelan - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.