In this issue I address a comment of Peter F.'s about my On-going 4-gum
test (now expanded to 5 and the sky's the limit):
On Sun, 18 Aug 1996, Peter Charles Fredrick wrote:
> I am of the opinion
> that to test any of the Alt/photo processes the aims should be kept simple,
> one must not include to many variables, perhaps if you had chosen one paper
> , and tested your four gums on it
While I don't wish to seem ungrateful for the fatherly advice, Peter, I
don't know how you can say that with a straight face. If this was the
way, for better or worse, *you* would have framed *your* quest, it
certainly wasn't mine. (And notice please, how I *refrained* from saying
how you should have framed *your* recent operation, different as it was
from my own preferences and priorities -- didn't I?).
> then a simple authoritive statement could be made, that would be of
> immediate use to us all. I think sometimes you work far to hard Judy, and
> get buried under all the information you uncover.
> .... we do not know which gum worked best on which paper.
Alas, you seem to have entirely missed my point -- which was the lack of
any obvious *best,* only a finding of certain possible (but variable)
differences. Even more significant and crucial, *my* best for my style of
printing (of the moment) would not be someone else's best, as we would
know from comparing notes with Bernie in LA, among myriad others.
Art in general, not to mention gum in particular, is not a New York
magazine feature on the 10 "best" frozen custards, or "the best" divorce
lawyer (you sound so American), if these could be ascertained, which they
can't -- certainly they always leave out MY favorites, and for every
"best" doctor, I guarantee a tale of horror.
Art is an operation full of intangibles, contradictions, opposites,
variables, nuances, subtleties, oddball styles, differences of opinion,
and personal sensibilities. All one can say *for sure* is "pH of 3," or
"color faded to greengray in sunlight" or "very shiny on second coat."
Judy