warning: bad word...RE: to mat or not

• To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
• Subject: warning: bad word...RE: to mat or not
• From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
• Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: Alt Photo List <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
• Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
• In-reply-to: <008901c0bd7c$e2c52860$b41d4f3f@cherry>
• Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dave Rose wrote:
CUT

> looking at.  They really don't care if it's a gum print, platinum,
> Cibachrome, conventional B&W silver print, or (heaven forbid!) a photocopy.
> So why bother proving to the uneducated masses that your prints are
> 'handmade' by shoving the evidence (torn paper edges, scribbled notes and
> brush strokes) in their face?  Will they understand or appreciate what
> they're looking at?  Not likely.  (Yes, I understand the comeback to that
> question.... "we need to educate the masses"!!!). Better to wow them with


Dave, screw the "uneducated masses." I'm not trying to wow them -- or
anyone like them. Just myself.

> the image itself.... isn't that what really mattered anyway when you tripped
> the shutter?

actually not... my best pictures are always made by the camera, behind my
back.

Judy

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: warning: bad word...RE: to mat or not
    • From: Gary Miller <gmphotos@earthlink.net>

• References:
  • RE: to mat or not
    • From: Dave Rose <photo@wir.net>

• Prev by Date: Re: to mat or not..
• Next by Date: Re: to mat or not..
• Prev by thread: RE: to mat or not
• Next by thread: Re: warning: bad word...RE: to mat or not
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread