I've listening to the voices in the dark, to the attempt by a few to
flush-out the meaning, or just to serve as voice in the darkness.
And... my thoughts drifted back to the times in the art world when
Impressionsists were the minority because the realists rejected the new
upstarts, and when the expressionsists came along, these guys met-up
with the same refusniks from those who only just a few decades before
"endured" the same treatment by the earlier, whatever... and so it
goes... until one day came along a force called Cubism.
And so it goes...
I'd like to hear from Judy and others how you feel the future will view
the activities that we're involved in, if say 20 years from now photo
supply houses will cease carrying these fine glossy, warm tone, or
matt... off the shelf sheets in these fancy boxes, and we'll be told,
well you know... everyone's doing "digi...whooie" so we just stopped
selling that "stuff, I guess you'll just have to mix your own!"
Will be be called the Classists, the "Keepers of the Light 21st
Century," the Neo-clasisicts, the what...???
I believe that alt-processes must be fostered and continued despite the
difficulty, not just to stand out in the galleries with the absolutely
best darn Carbon, Carbro, or Palladium, but the simple truth that the
torch is maintained.
that's my .02=A2
What say you???
Shalom.=20
>Judy Seigel wrote:
=20
> On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Richard Wheeler wrote:
=20
> At the same time, it is entirely legitimate, indeed necessary and
> *scientific* to look for categories within categories. In fact there a=
re
BTW The dates are going north on me; what's happening here....
BFN