>Peter, I realise you put that in to annoy me, assuming the scurvy creature
in Amateur Photographer could be considered "a print." So far from
"beautiful," it would take 40 makeovers and a brain transplant to get her
to repulsive.<
Judy I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this one! I was making a comment
on a e:mail sent by Terry.
Firstly my comment in regard to Dunstan's printmaking, is concerned with
the fact that he makes prints for a number of eminent photographers such
as John Swannal ,fashion photographer,John Stewert fine art photographer,
Carl Little and many others.Examples of these work can be seen in the
British Journal of Photography 31-1-96, other work Professional
photographer may 1996,
These photographers would not use his services if he wasn't highly
skilled.I reviewed his recent exhibition at the Ilford gallery for APR
vol1/2 again Ilford limited would have not agreed to show his work if it
had no value
You have leapt from the particular, to the general, without any real
justification.I too find the AP barbi doll print repulsive, not because
of the process, but the concept and aesthetic. Had the image been a moody
lake district landscape, or say a rainy night scene set in New York ,then
you would have a real impression of the potential process
>I am compelled to note this -- whatever your cynical scheme
-- since transmission of values to the next generation is everyone's
responsibility.<..
I find this bit particularly insulting, almost bordering on a personal
attack. I do not have any cynical schemes. I have been a Professional
full-time lecturer in Further and Higher education for over 30 years, I am
more than cognizant of my responsibilities in respect of the next
generation.
I came onto this list to share and gather information, not to take part in
a punch and judy show, I have no wish to insult you in any way, so for
goodness sake Judy stop this nonsense and lets start working together.
pete