Re sleeping dogs, etc... was Re: Alt-emulsion-projection
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Dean Kansky wrote: I was waiting for someone else to mention this -- I can't be the only one who also reads the History of Photography list (can I?). Due to the perversity of my digitons, I can't write to the history list unless I resubscribe to Yahoo, but I'm still getting the mail.The other questions: if Terry was underhanded in his promotions or articles to make a quick buck and get kudos has only to do with our view of Mr. King. Within recent memory, maybe the last 6 weeks, Mike Ware wrote a detailed explanation on the History of Photography list of why so-called "Cyanotype Rex" adds nothing to what was already done and known. Plus, if I understood correctly (which I might not have, since I was brain impaired at the time, besides which it was beyond me) that the "Rex" version is inferior at best, or possibly stinks. I'm not at all sure Terry would have had "a quick buck" as prime motive, more likely simple "glory"...one upsmanship, or bragging rights. What to me speaks louder in this case than any motives anyone might impute is the fact that he made NO reply to Ware's demolition. Of course he might have retreated to the studio to craft a devastating rebuttal, but, if Ware hadn't hit home, I suspect we'd have heard *something* by now. CUT Terry resigned from this list, AFAIK, he was not put off. But whoever has had more than a whiff of the fellow knows that "including" Terry in a discussion isn't possible, because what we think of as "discussion" does not take place with him. (That is the man's true genius and special gift.)P.S. I wrote Mr. King, last night, and told him that he should defend him for resign, since I do not think it right to talk about him here, call for things, and not include him. In any event, my hunch would be that this time he left because folks were on to him -- he wasn't having any fun. Dean, if you really thought he knew his "game," and that game was something technical in photography, you yourself may have lacked enough expertise in those particular "games" to judge. In short, it was his manner, not his "expertise" that convinced.I always thought him difficult and disruptive (how many "dust ups" has the list has since Terry has not been posting vs. when he was posting) but I always thought he knew his game. So this is all a shock. Terry's role in the RPS as chair (I think it was/is) of the History of Photography committee may indeed be valid... My tiny knowledge in the area couldn't judge if I wanted to which I absolutely don't -- that's not my problem. But where I had considerable knowledge & experience, as for instance in gum printing, I found his pronouncements larded with bluff and bluster... For ONE tiny example, unusual because he had no way to "argue" or change the subject... Someone asked the list if sodium dichromate could be used to print gum. Terry answered instantly & authoritatively, it can't, it's no good. However, having actually tested na di, I wrote that it's OK, much more soluble (from memory, 75% -- this was 8 years ago), so stronger, and very (as I remember the term was hydroscopic,ie., absorbing moisture). Atypically, Terry replied simply, uh, "'someone' told me it wasn't any good." Dean, I may speak for others as well as myself when I suggest: don't trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. But you might look for Mike Ware's dissection on the history of photography list, or if you go to Ware's website it's probably there -- and then enlighten us all.If he is banned, he should be allowed to compose a defense and post it with the right of reply. We need to be fair, no matter, whose side we are inclined to support. As for offering a "right of reply" on alt photo, lots of luck. Or to put it another way -- the gentleman has been treated **too** fairly on this list. Let's be fair to the list. Judy
|