Re: gum "curves"
At 9:57 AM -0800 10/29/06, Katharine Thayer wrote:
On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Sandy King wrote:
No, I did not say, or imply, that your work is crap. If I had wanted to say that, it would have been stated very directly. The work I criticized, I have seen in person. I would never call work I have not seen in person crap, and I have never had the opportunity to see any of your work in person. Alternative work has surface and textural qualities that are very important, and viewing on a monitor does not give any real indication of these qualities. Quite simply, I am not able to judge the quality of your work, or that of anyone else, by looking at on a web site.
Have you seen this work in person? If so, may I ask whose work you have seen? It could be that what you saw was just very poor work, and not really a representative sample of what can be achieved. I am fairly certain there are many persons out there working with curves who are unable to take advantage of them because they lack sufficient control of the process.
some phases of the evolution of my vision over the years, or shares my aesthetic preferences, but it should be obvious to anyone from my demonstration prints that I can easily produce a print that fits the idea of "political correctness" in photography when I want to, even if you don't understand some of my exhibition work, which is very much out of line, and deliberately so.Not everyone (not every photographer anyway) understands
I don't know anything about your aesthetic preferences. I have never seen any of your exhibition work so have had no need to understand it. Nor do I have any idea of what you mean by the idea of "political correctness" in photography. As I mentioned earlier, alternative printing, and to some extent most types of fine art photography, must be seen in person to be appreciated for anything other than their content.