Re: Re: No Photography before 1800?

From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2000 - 19:44:04 /etc/localtime


On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 FDanB@aol.com wrote:

> >What if I leave my
> >garbage can out on the grass and it leaves a mark?
> >
> If the mark is caused by the surrounding grass's having become greener
> owing to exposure to the sun, then yes, it should be considered
> photography. If on the other hand, the grass under the can dies because
> it was deprived of sunlight...then I don't know. Seems we always define
> photography as a response TO light, not as an effect resulting from the
> deprivation of light.
>
> Fun stuff. My brain even woke up for this thread!
>
> Dan

How about a fad for ladies putting their boyfriends' or lover's photo on
their skin, bosom or wherever popular early part of this century? They
taped or stuck on the neg, then exposed to sun. One of my old photo mags
currently breeding histamines for export had an item on it... maybe I can
even find it again.

Judy



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 17:07:42