There's enough of me that recognises that, as I'm a bit of a perfectionist and control freak, photocopies of prints would have to be really exceptional for me to get involved with this sort of thing.
I was thinking about this last night and I've come up with another of my hare brained theories... but I think it makes some sense.
Every print has a certain number of criteria that can be laid out in a formation that I call the print triangle. On the surface, you have tonal distribution which occupies the top point. On the two remaining bottom points, you have composition and content. The rule goes in a way that you need to have at least two points to make a picture worthwhile.
When you use photocopy as a distribution medium, you loose the tonal distribution. This means that your image can only rely on composition and content to convey its message.
But this doesn't mean that it is worthless in any way. We can compare it to bad prints of good images. The best example is if we look at "Migrant Mother", a classic in every right. The print quality is not awesome, it is even said that it's almost a miracle that an image could be made from such a badly exposed and developed negative. Yet the image remains powerful mainly because of the subject.
On the other hand, there are some of Ansel's very slick prints that have either doubtful subjects or shoddy composition and yet they still work.
Photocopy for me is a perfect way to get physical images into the hands of the people. And with the copiers becoming better than ever, it sounds like a very interesting alternative. This is especially true of the color laser copiers. And there are also good laser printers that can be used like they do for Hamburger Eyes.
