Re: Nameless show at John Stevenson
Hi All Many thanks to Judy, Susan and all the others of you who take the time to review shows and/or let the list know what shows are on. It's great to know what happening around the world - even if I can't get to see it in person, it's terrific to have people's thoughts on the shows too. These days too, more often than not, a website will also picture some of the work (I know a computer screen isn't a substitute for the real thing, or for being there), so posting the address is a wonderful plus. I wouldn't know where to look for what's on otherwise. thanks all! Catherine ----- Original Message ----- From: "SusanV" <susanvoss3@gmail.com> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 10:05 AM Subject: Nameless show at John Stevenson > Judy I was waiting for you to write something. I knew it would be > ever more interesting and charming if I just stayed out of the way, > and I was right of course. And don't you dare tease me about coming > in to the city, you you you... anti-countrysider. > > Yes, the show was amazing. Keith's work is beyond masterful, but > getting to meet Judy, Keith and his wife (Beth Dow... go look her up, > she's an ace photog herself), was the best part of all. I want to go > back in and take my time looking at the show itself, as most of my > time last night was spent chatting with Keith and Judy. > > Did I mention Keith's work is masterful? Truly it is. > Just go see the show. > > Susan > > > > > > > On 5/17/07, Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu> wrote: > > > > > > 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!! > > > > Sandy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Judy > > > > ======================================================================= > > > > "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: > > > > www.frontandbackpress.com > > > > > > > -- > susan > gravure blog at www.susanvossgravures.blogspot.com > website www.dalyvoss.com >
|