Hello DKenna, (you have a first name? sorry!)
I can't help observing, in response to your manifesto, that some of the
"exchange of technical information" on this list has *seemed to me* to
reach from here to inanity, or the equivalent of how many molecules can
dance on the head of a platinum pin. But people cared about it, and it was
adding to the sum total of knowledge (apparently) for at least some of
them, and really no harm done.... I figured let the mechanojunkies get
their fix....
But now, you claim, the list "has broken down to name calling and rather
petty stupid discussions." Name calling it's true, but in the grand
scheme of things some fairly tame names, which is to say, frankly, I was
surprised at how touchy some of the fellas turned out to be. Maybe being
guys they'd never been "insulted" before. Women -- perhaps -- learn to
shrug off putdowns because they get so many of them. As for "petty stupid
discussions," if any of us could see into the future and tell how a little
jostling is suddenly going to flare into some really bad hair, I guess
we'd be using those talents more productively -- I mean you could set up a
table on Wall street and make some real money foretelling the future. And
it did seem that everybody felt bad about getting onto thin ice & with
whatever grace could be mustered pulled in their horns. A triumph in fact
for civilization.
Now you make a couple of other unwarranted assumptions -- for one, that
the quality of philosophy or critical discussion here is the cheap,
inferior Walmart version. Really? I've found it acute, apt, articulate,
indeed at times amazing, albeit at other times full of flapdoodle, but
again, we don't know what will come of it till we've gotten there. (I
can't previsualize a discussion any more than I can previsualize a
photograph.) And I certainly do not consider my own contributions to be
the least bit Walmarty (tho I confess to never having been in a Walmart --
have you?). In fact I could make a case that by saying so *you* are doing
the insulting! Yes, come to think of it, I do definitely feel quite
insulted....
As for subscribing to the Photo Art list, even assuming it's of sufficient
level to engage the superior minds of those of us who insist on the best
of everything -- sorry, I can hardly deal with one list and lead my life
and do my work. Even more important, and here perhaps, sir (you are a
sir?), you might take pause -- it is a delusion to imagine you can
separate the theory from the work and put them in two different boxes...
Woe onto him or her who does...
Which is to say we must reserve the right (I certainly do until Steve
deaccessions me) to follow those discussions into theory when they
organically lead there. Not to mention the pleasure of enjoying the
critical and aesthetic ideas of expert colleagues whom we have come to
admire and respect... Needless to say, we shall all strive every day in
every way to be kinder, politer, and worthier, but I pray we will not have
to censor our every "conversation" for fear we are not being sufficiently
technical, and to watch our every sentence for fear of drifting into
the dread theoretical... If we do, if we become so intimidated, much life
and heart will be drained from this discourse.
> products and know one really knows anything about what they are selling . I
> am of the old school. I like specialty stores that only se
> product but sell it well and know all about it.
It is certainly your privilege in a country as full of freedoms as this
one to be "of the old school." On the other hand, some of us are going to
be or hoping to be or at least contemplating being some kind of as yet to
be established or defined "new school." And you must permit that, even if
you can't appreciate it. And you are certainly free to like speciality
stores, but you must allow others to decide they haven't the time to run
from store to store for each thing. I myself have often found that
"specialty stores" are a drag -- the selection limited, the merchandise
shopworn and the atmosphere wan...
> So is this list to be come
> the Walmart of photography or will we remain a specialty list dealing with
> the process as pure process without all the theory? God knows it's hard
> enough to make a good alt. process print without all the other
> garbage..........
Garbage? You are official garbage detecter? I haven't seen any garbage,
tho I saw some excess verbiage I would have edited, as well as some
arrogance and contempt.... Meanwhile in paragraph one above you urge that
we get back to the "friendly exchange" of technical information. I'm sure
we will -- in fact we never stopped. But telling us we're talking garbage
isn't very friendly.
Repent!
Sincerely,
Judy