From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 06/02/00-10:52:14 AM Z
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000, peter fredrick wrote:
> >>Discussions about digital output as a final product don't belong
> here, in my opinion, and there are plenty of other places for such
> discussions to occur. This list is supposed to be about alternative
> processes. As long as that's the ultimate goal, I agree with
> everything you've said.<< Katharine
>
> Again we are in broad agreement concerning the ultimate goal of this list,
> but I personally feel it is healthy for the list to veer off subject from
> time to time to discuss associated subject matter after all everything
> impinges on everything whether we like it or not . Otherwise we are
> encouraging a ghetto mentality.
I believe the whole discussion as to whether digital is/is not mainstream
arose because someone did/did not take my semi-ironic, semi-joking remark
at face value, although it's nice to see ancillary or peripheral
discussion ratified. (Of course "digital" *will* be mainstream in about 24
minutes, if it isn't already, but I think we said that.)
But Pete's point is well taken because some of us are so law-abiding we
hesitate to put worthy, *interesting* material on the list lest we
transgress... Certainly we'd all be the poorer without such goodies as how
to make an intaglio press with an old mangle and bits of metal lying about
in the back of the garage.
And I mean that -- of course it convinced me that should I take leave of
my senses long enough to desire a gravure press, to buy it ready made, but
the succinct, clear graphic description was a pleasure to read. Who knew
that a piece of metal could have so much personality? Thank you, Rod.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:44 AM Z CST