Since I think I'm the proximate cause of the current brew in the alt-photo
teapot, let me explain what it looked like from my position -- tho I could
well have been wrong, which would not be an unprecedented event.
But first a few words about "staying on topic." As the old song says,
"the thighbone's connected to the kneebone and the kneebone's connected to
the shin bone," or words to that effect. Capcanuck -- and others -- have
asked where to get such and such photos. That's on topic, I gather. Then
someone else warned about copyright for photos -- info correct or not is
beside the point, since we're not trashing folks for factual error, I
hope, or even for honest misinterpretations of known facts. And I made a
brief comment/question about how and why (about which more in a moment).
What happened next was that the topic police arrived, sirens screaming,
lights flashing, and some of our most engaging commentators are suddenly
intimidated and apologetic.
But surely, if we have to be so careful at every turn that none of 500
people, MOST OF WHOM WE HAVE NEVER HEARD OF OR FROM, gets peeved,
discourse will be so bland and buttoned up that we will be at risk of
falling asleep at our keyboards. If we must attempt to ever-so-strictly
toe what is obviously a very ill-defined line, stay religiously within
such vaguely defined borders, defend in advance against accusations of
straying "off topic," AND ALSO refrain from disagreeing, much less
criticising, any other comment for fear of being called "mean spirited,"
we are in effect reduced to exchanging formulas and numbers, and even so
might fear to correct clear error. Such rules would cost us much of the
life of the on-going, interactive, stimulating, creative -- even joyful --
group endeavor that these discussions do, at their best, become.(Would I
even be permitted to tell Peter Fredrick and Terry King a thing or so
about detail in gum?)
Besides which, I must in the kindest and most rational way possible point
out that neither I nor anyone else who had been discussing these issues
was guilty of **bashing** as accused. What it sounds like to me is that
some folks got so into the pure heinousness of a fairly civil discussion
that the "cure" became more heated than the disease, if disease it was.
> On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Donna Zoll wrote: > > > >I think we on the list
should try not to make negative comments,particularly > > when responding
to a request for help,as far as I can see this type of > > criticism
serves no purpose,and only causes bad feeling. > > .... I for one
prefer to read technical and exploratory
It occurs to me to suggest that anyone who finds something I write
insufficiently technical and exploratory (and surely this essay is both
technical and exploratory) might e-mail me to that effect along with how
much it cost them to receive the message and I would reimburse them with
cash or check. But another person might prefer aesthetics and philosophy of
alt-photo. And so on. In other words, as long as we're civil and
generally within the parameters, we don't need either censorship or prior
restraint. And have never.
But on Sat, 17 Feb1996, Jack Fulton wrote: > > information related to
the topic. If I want to read person to persons bashing > > I'll hang out
on chat. > > ..............From my California end too, I'd like to say
that many of > the comments have been mean spirited. Some person aks for
info of books > and many folks believe they will be "ripped off"
Now Jack, I have to be frank with you, I find that an awesome distortion
of not only my own words and meaning but of anything I've read on these
pages. Mercifully, Capcanuck seems to have taken my comment/ reproach,
justified or not, good naturedly. But let me explain where my mind was:
A couple of years ago I took the time and trouble, not to mention
considerable expense, to travel to Washington DC for a lecture
on the platinum prints of Alfred Stieglitz at the National Gallery. The
young miss giving this lecture turned out to know less about platinum
printing than I did, which wasn't a helluva lot. I felt ripped off.
Finding a request on this list for information *for a museum lecture* from
someone who seemed not to know the most basic references on the processes,
I imagined a similar situation, unsuspecting paying audience at best not
getting the expertise it came expecting, and had a right to expect,
given the auspices.
And since, rightly or wrongly, I feel myself on the carpet here, I will
add that I couldn't help thinking of the many folks who labored long
years to produce those references or have contributed to them, often with
little or no reward (no money grubbing at all) who might have welcomed
what in such venues is often a very generous speaker's fee.
And since I may as well be hung for a goat as a sheep, I'll add that I've
had the sense on these (mercifully rare) occasions that accusations of
"off-topic" are simply a way of scolding a person who has, advertently or
not, stepped on a toe. For surely a response to a request for information
on an alt-photo process made to the list is as valid, relevant, and
"on-topic" as need be and a comment on the question is still on-topic. As
for the thoughts behind the question -- well, who among us has not been
profoundly disappointed by a proffered "expert." If it's mean-spirited to
say so, then any criteria of quality are mean-spirited.
However, I realize I did create a scenario in my mind that may have been
very wide of the mark. Or somewhat wide of the mark. (As someone recently
said, "If I hadn't believed it in my own mind, I wouldn't have seen it.")
Or even slightly wide of the mark. And so I apologize to capcanuck, may he
find what he's looking for, enjoy his adventure, live and be well and read
the alt-photo archive and in general delight us when HE becomes the
expert....
But one more thing while I'm at it: Jack, you live in California, and you're
telling us that
> Anger rose and vidictive comments about spurious motives flew like Thor's
> thunderbolts.
Jack, I have to be frank with you. I never noticed that.
>It is truly immature and
> non-informative and is in fact sort of non egalitarian bordering on
> domination in a classic patriarchal manner.
Even I realize it would be off-topic to ask more about classic
partriarchal domination, tho I'm interested in whatever you have to say
on the subject, Jack. As for "egalitarian" ....... life, alas, is not.
Sorry.
Judy