Re: "alternative"

Richard Wheeler (rwheeler@amazon.hunter.cuny.edu)
Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:18:49 -0400 (EDT)

I'm almost afraid to speak up on this topic; is it just me or is there a
bias developing against all list members but the super-regualars? Before
I go on, I'd like to say that it is discouraging to hear individuals
chastised for their opinions or input merely because they do not post to
this list regularly.

But let me get back on topic. Isn't this debate splitting hairs a bit?
Why do we need to have such a clear cut divide between straight and
alternative? For example, how would the group place the Starn twins?
They use silver materials; does that mean they aren't alternative process
practioners? Or how about someone who just uses a commercial product
like Liquid Light: are they using an alternative process, or are they
excluded because they are using an alternative-in-a-bottle approach? How
about a photographer like Willie Anne Wright; is she not alternative
because she uses cibachrome? Basically, my question is this:
are alternative processes are merely a formula or a recipe or are they
an alternate way of approaching photographic materials and equipment?

I respect the intensity of purpose and focus which many list members
bring to their work. But I ask why we cannot discuss all
alternatives.

richard u wheeler
rwheeler@everest.hunter.cuny.edu
rwheeler@guggenheim.org
http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~rwheeler