Re: Fresson and Dr Dunstan Perera

Luis Nadeau (nadeaul@nbnet.nb.ca)
Mon, 01 Jun 1998 21:17:03 -0300

At 5:04 PM -0300 98/05/29, Peter Marshall wrote:

>In-Reply-To: <l03010d01b193935ee253@[198.164.201.218]>
><snip>
>> And ain't it too bad that he won't show anything to anyone?
>>
>> I wonder how many people are willing to blow three grand on a trip that
>>
>> Luis Nadeau
>> NADEAUL@NBNET.NB.CA

>On the contrary he showed me an awful lot of things and was very
>informative on a whole range of subjects, including the reasons why he is
>not willing to cooperate with certain people, which I can only respect.

I certainly agree with the last part of your sentence but I'll remind you
that his (Perera) only "contribution" to this list has been his *objection*
to people trying to understand other's processes. I don't remember seeing a
single line of technical advice. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>I've previously suggested strongly that a principle of posting to this
>list should be that we recognise the positive aspects of what various
>people have done. Dunstan has developed at least two fine processes which
>show us all what can be done. Terry has previously organised the most
>successful conference on alt-photo to date ...

So you are into the "power of positive thinking"? That's dandy but my view
is a little wider. Whenever a groupie comes up and says look at how great
the world is because of say, a Bill Gates or George Eastman, I say HOLD IT!
Gates's case will be in the courts for years and has little to do with
photography so I won't comment on him, but George Eastman is fair game. I
say, look at the entire picture. Don't just look at the pretty stuff they
want you to look at. Don't be a sheep! Don't limit your attention span to
five seconds! Keep questioning, keep challenging, read Robert Cialdini,
_Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion_ ($13 at Amazon.com). Then you'll
understand why I am impervious to affected outrage...

Not only that but you will also understand those on this list who didn't
want me to act the way I did when I decided to put an end to the Judy-Terry
conflict (i.e., "conditioning and association," pp. 188-190). The same book
btw (pp. 237-271) also explains why so many among us are after elusive
processes, e.g., Fresson, while so many other processes are not interesting
for the simple reason that they are readily available. A fascinating book.

And speaking of books one could easily write one the size of a major city's
telephone directory with the dirty tricks that put George Eastman's Kodak
where it is today. Everybody knows that Kodak lost to Polaroid a few years
ago but few people have any idea that George Eastman put **MANY** other
competitors out of business prior to that. Polaroid lost a lot of business
but was strong enough to survive while Kodak was ripping it off. Such was
not the case with hundreds, if not thousands of other companies. Perhaps
the best case was that of Hannibal Goodwin of Newark (NJ, USA) who produced
the first flexible film (nitrocellulose) in 1886. By the time those who
bought his patent won in 1914, Goodwin was out of business and **this is
what matters to me** nobody on earth can say what he could have achieved
had he been allowed to live and prosper normally.

The fact that "Terry has previously organised the most successful
conference on alt-photo to date" is totally meaningless to me compared to
the damage he has done to this field and several people I know. It's like
saying Stalin was very good to his wife. I'm sure he was but I'm not so
narrow minded that I look through a keyhole with both eyes. I like to look
at the entire picture and in this particular case I have a better view than
most because many people do not have the courage to complain publicly on
the list and instead complain to me or Gord. They will certainly not
complain to you, a wellknown Terry apologist.

Luis Nadeau
NADEAUL@NBNET.NB.CA
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada