Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:04:47 -0800
If we are all engaging in these turn of the 20th century alternative
processes, then I think that it is ideal to have a printed publication on
alternative processes. In a way the printed journal on alt processes is now
fast becoming an alternative process itself. Pretzel logic??
GM
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Saturday, February 13, 1999 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Web vs print (was exhibition alt imagery)
>
>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999, Steve Shapiro wrote:
>>
>> I too make fun of Judy's preamble: As stated in Post Factory # ... .
But,
>> I'm constantly reminded that it's there, and it's the quintessential
>> reference.
>
>And so does Judy, obviously, indulge in a certain self-mockery -- but,
>please note: she has arguably put more information, solid, reliable,
>accessible -- AND by people doing the processes themselves, in authentic,
>informed, and *innovative* "reports from the field" -- on this list, FREE
>to the world, than all the complainers put together. And she would bet
>that, if all the folks who said they were going to footnote Post-Factory
>have done so, it's been cited in more other references in just two issues
>than all but a handful of "web sites."
>
>Not to mention that Judy, as subscriber to this list, has arguably
>contributed as much useful information (even not counting entertainment
>value) to this list from year one as any other person, either. But did you
>also notice that she has given freely MUCH information from the journal
>when the subject arose in list discussion? Even at times when it didn't?
>
>How could she do that, even with 18-hour days? Pop off an address, a
>source, an item, an idea, a fact?. True, she often cites the origin...
>that's bad? Isn't that part of it? BUT PLEASE NOTE: that's how she can
>reel off the information -- it's in a coherent, organized, accessible,
>handy form. No need to ppip or hardware handshake, log on, log off, or
>download: Just pick it up off the chair, and check the index on page 47.
>
>So what is it, you may ask, that makes anyone want "to puke" at the
>mention of this source? Whatever the rationale, I suspect it's the girl
>with an organ of publication of her own that sticks in the craw.
>
>Anyhow and meanwhile, let me assure Jeff, & any others who imagine a get
>rich quick scheme, that the desire to "make a buck" is hardly it. In fact
>each issue I mail puts me at least $1.50 in the red, because the cost to
>print equals the cover price. And that's giving my labor,those 18-hour
>days, free.
>
>I will further suggest that others with like publications -- at least the
>ones I know -- also donate their labor free, and just barely break even,
>if that. In fact, if you know anyone "making a buck" on a good
>independent venture of this sort, I hope you'll reveal. Well, I was going
>to say I'll go take lessons, but that's not the point. It would certainly
>bolster my self esteem if I could cover expenses, but I ASSURE you I could
>take my talents, such as they are, and make a better buck elsewhere in a
>fraction of the time.
>
>But as you FORCE me to say yet again, to my mind the print format is
>superior for all the purposes of P-F, except showing the work in color. I
>cherish the thought that the b&w illustrations do give a good indication,
>but Post-Factory is NOT about display. It's about information, ideas and
>reading. Not everyone will agree that print format works better here --
>some folks don't like to read anyway, but if we were all the same we would
>only need one person in the world, right?
>
>Meanwhile, the suggestion seems to be that anyone who puts a price on
>their labors in this field is venal. That it should all be, as I recall
>Jeff's words "free and available to all." Let me suggest that if that
>were applied across the board there would be precious little information
>of value. True, many of us labor for the joy of discovery, as I certainly
>do -- but somewhere along the line, folks have to eat and get in out of
> the rain. And Jeff said he thought the web page would leave "more time
> for our art." Are you selling your art, Jeff?
>
>I'll add that we ran a thread in this vein in year one. Claude Seymour,
>as I recall, argued that knowledge should be free.... speaking against
>copyright and patents, as I recall. Yet he himself so far as I know had
>contributed damn-all to the free knowledge he wanted. (See the archive,
>probably circa 1996.)
>
>But I'm starting to feel like Errol Flynn in one of those swashbuckler
>movies -- 10 Frenchmen with swords are chasing him up the stairs as he
>clickety click backwards wards off all at once. Of course he walks off
>insouciantly at the curtain, and I'm not so certain of that denouement.
>But from telling P-F writers to publish elsewhere, to saying they could
>*puke* at the reference ... not to mention other slings & arrows in this
>venue... I get the feeling that at least a few knives are out....
>
>They say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but I see the list
>demonizing mention of a good resource ("quintessential", oh thank you
>Steve) in a good format. Is KOL demonized? Is Luis reproached for not
>putting his info "free & available" on the web? Nobody is damning Carl and
>John Bernier, among others frequently cited here, who have written,
>presumably for money, for Photo Techniques, which is not usually given
>away free, and most probably does make a buck. But that, I ASSURE YOU, is
>from advertising. Post-Factory takes no ads, for reasons too obvious to
>state.
>
>and so forth,
>
>Judy
>
>
>
>
>> Except for the history of rural development, art colonies and the
beginning
>> of the Arts and Crafts movement; which is aptly covered in MY
photo/history
>> of Carmel, California; "Carmel - A Timeless Place" by Steve Shapiro
>> available through Barnes and Noble or if you're in the area, the
Thunderbird
>> Bookstore.
>>
>> Without such footnotes, we scholars for the sake of accurate information
in
>> the pursuit of knowledge would be flounders.
>>
>> Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:50