RE: "ultimate alt process"
1878. Hmmmmmmmmmm. That date seems significant. Wasn't some
obscure process patented that year? Let's see...might it be platinum
printing? Must be something arcane like that! ;-))
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: "ultimate alt process"
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
> like any good story, true or false, our wish to believe or be skeptical
> is purely driven by emotion...if it was a true experiment, it was
> science back then...today, in this forum's context, said work challenges
> the line between ethics and art...true or false, the concept is
> fantastic and serves as a powerfully expressive vehicle
But it's not a "good story," it's a terrible story. The concept is hardly
"fantastic," other than as an elaboration on the familiar "final sight
found on the iris" notion, though even less convincing. It sounds more
like a latter-day spoof than "history" -- unless it comes with *some*
documentation, or references, which, at least as reported on the cited
site are lacking.
"Ethics" is hardly the issue. (If you read some of the things doctors
used to do to grown women, you'd faint... though on second thought bunny
rabits may have been treated better.)
So I looked up Willy Kuhne in Josef Maria Eder's History of Photography --
no entry. Eder is the most excessive namedropper in the field I could
think of, but maybe someone has another reference work more likely ?
Which is to say, here's a guy supposedly did some dramatic research in
1878, whether or not it "worked" or was "ethical," and the tale suddenly
surfaces in 2007 de novo... WITHOUT ANY CITATIONS FROM THE PERIOD (or from
this period either) at least as presented, and we're supposed to believe
it? (Oh, I almost forgot to mention, I have a beautiful little bridge for
sale, at a bargain price, all the way to Brooklyn, you know?)
Folks may enjoy discussing theoretical ethics: if so and so happened,
would you do so and so or thus and such. But this isn't remotely of that
order.... Discussing the matter "seriously," lacking any paper trail,
citations, or evidence, let alone "science," seems to enter the world of a
not very funny joke. As for "ethics" -- ethics of what? Lying? Fake
history? Vivisection of bunnies?
> Read My T-Shirt for President: A True History of the Political Front and
> Back, by Judy Seigel.
> "I'd recommend it for a Pulitzer Prize, except I lack the credentials."