>On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, TERRY KING wrote:
>
>> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 03:49:21 +1000
>> From: TERRY KING <101522.2625@compuserve.com>
>> To: Multiple recipients of list <alt-photo-process@vast.unsw.edu.au>
>> Subject: Critics and PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> "Not all photography during the last 150 years was all that imitative of
>> painting or "second-hand.""
>>
>> I said 'much was ' ,not all of it.
>>
>> You also said :
>>
>> "There never was anything second-hand about fine photography. I don't know
>> where you got that idea."
>>
>> Bob, take a closer look.
>>
>> You said
>>
>> "In the long run critics don't amount to a hill of beans. In the short run
>> they're a mixed bag of beans. Like peanuts, they're handy to have between
>> meals."
>>
>> Critics have a very significnant effect on how the public reacts to
photography.
>> What is your reaction to photographiuc reviews in the New York Times? And
what
>> do you think students in colleges are taught?
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> :As for the role of modernism in dispensing with gingerbread, it was a
>> purging. Now we're sophisticated enough to appreciate gingerbread within
>> esthetic reason. Gargoyles don't frighten me. To this PM photographer, a
>> gargoyle is sometimes more to the point than other goyles. "
>>
>> I hate to ask this Bob, but what is it that makes you think that you are a PM
>> photographer. Answer on one side of the post card only please.
>>
>> Terry King
>
>Is this the right teapot for this tempest? Why don't you take it to the
>photoart list, where it can more comfortably rage on, inconclusively, ad
>nauseum.
>
>C. Seymour
>
>