garimo (omirag@cruzio.com)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:20:30 -0800 (PST)
>In this sense, it is irrelevent who prints an image, or even who clicks the
>shutter. What is important is who the purveyor of the final artifact is;
>who directs the synthesis of the elements of light, chemestry, paper, and
>vision.
>
> Andrei S. Harwell
> HHPA
Hello... Andrei?
My small mind needs some help interrupting this statement. My mind
tells me a purveyor is the same as a supplier or provider.... Your
words are saying in one sentence the photographer and the printer are
irrelevant... Next sentence you say it's the provider/supplier/director
of light chemistry, paper and vision that is important.
Who then is this important purveyor if it is not the photographer and
the printer? Why keep the purveyor a mystery? Out the esoteric... lets
identify the facts clearly.
> In some cases, new work from an office (like Skidmore,
>Owings, and Merrill) is still attributed to founding partners (now deceased)
>in a firm. Perhaps unethically, the vast majority of contributors to a
>project are never recognized.
Calling a thing round (when in reality it is square...) It remains
truly round reguardless how many times or how many people call it
square.
So What'd I miss? What were you really saying?
My mind feels like it's been given a Zen koan to contemplate...It's
neither This nor That...
(I bow to the Masters)
garimo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:54