U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Nameless show at John Stevenson

Re: Nameless show at John Stevenson

Title: Re: Nameless show at John Stevenson
Hi Judy,

Thanks for the report.

The quote offered by the informed , or uninformed,  intelligentsia  reminds me why one should avoid these type of events whenever possible. Unless of course one just has an addiction to cheap white wine.

I know this. I have seen some of Keith Taylor's prints, and they are not half bad!!


At 5:01 PM -0400 5/17/07, Judy Seigel wrote:
I was waiting for Susan to write something, but I suppose the trip in from Monroe NY to 23rd Street was so arduous she's still in recovery.  I title this e-mail "nameless' because I'd be terribly embarrassed to spell Cy de Cosse's name wrong in a subject line and neglected to pick up a flyer which would presumably have it right.

To put an end to the suspense, however, I report that the work was as splendid as could possibly be imagined, but that I myself was somewhat disappointed.  The disappointment was not with the work, however, which was endlessly fascinating, but because, what with the crowd of OTHER people who felt entitled to talk, and my delight at meeting the delightful Susan and her charming husband, I lost track of time, so the next thing I knew they were blinking the lights. Folks still didn't hurry out, but I had let Keith slip away from me, having had the intention of at the very least kidnapping him and using CIA methods to extract his every last secret.  Tho admittedly, he seemed happy to share, which makes my lapse doubly irksome.

I did however enjoy Cy de Cos's tale of hunting the holy blue calla lily seed (title nowhere near the original, sorry, and if you can, wiseguy, do it better)...but something like sunrise from the magic mountain peak on the 9th point of the holy red star. Whichever, he found a lilly-orium in of all places Texas, the goddess in charge selected 12 seeds, grew them with incantations and faerie dust, then brought them to an historic northern lake in a place they call minnihsoatah, where, tho some died, several lived to fulfil their mission on earth, and after careful contemplation he selected one to photograph, tho swimming to or however achieving the perfect vantage point with his massive camera was another saga --- imbuing the print with even greater aura. But at last, everything worked, and, as I recall, aura was further enhanced by a haze of red dots.)

Many questions remain, but I pose only two now. One rhetorical, one depressingly mundane.

"Rhetorical" was asked seriously by a guest, either to another guest or gallery personnel:  "Why do these prints look like paintings?"

Mundane: This is my own, as has been puzzling me for some time. I ask it of Keith who may be busy now, but no hurry:

Why do you use Imagesetter negatives instead of, say, digital, or other ? Should the ambitious gum printer, one leery of blotters, for instance, get an imagesetter ?

Meanwhile, I hesitate to say this, since we already have more traffic around here than advisable, but if you can squeeze yourselves in, come see this show.



"I'd recommend it for a Pulitzer Prize, except I lack the credentials."

Read My T-Shirt for President: A True History of the PoliticalFront _ and
Back, by Judy Seigel. For Delicious details, and how to order: