Re: Heliochromes

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:37:03 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Peter Charles Fredrick wrote:
> I too find the AP barbi doll print repulsive, not because
> of the process, but the concept and aesthetic.

Which was exactly my point... though that was the only example of the
process I've seen, and why, attempting to be *fair* I noted the favorable
comment I'd heard on work Perera had done for others.

> lake district landscape, or say a rainy night scene set in New York ,then
> you would have a real impression of the potential process

It was impossible to tell from the steps pictured whether the process
could do continuous tone in one coat. As noted, it *looked* from that
example like it couldn't.

> >I am compelled to note this -- whatever your cynical scheme
> -- since transmission of values to the next generation is everyone's
> responsibility.<..

Sorry, peter, guess I should get a key command for those smiley faces.
"Cynical scheme" might not make it onto Saturday Night Live, but it was
supposed to be a humorous or teasing way of insisting on the offense of the
image.

As aware as I always am of these "soft signs" in the culture (what I have
elsewhere called "Pornography in the Mainstream"), I'm especially het up
right now because of a mind-boggling mural-size painting on the wall at my
school I am suddenly expected to teach under. (I will be forced to spray
paint it first.) The pretense that stuff of this sort is "fine art" or a
neutral art convention still, incredibly, in this year 1996, pervades.

Sorry again.

I know you aren't the ***least bit **** cynical. (;-))))))))) !!!

Judy