From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/10/01-05:22:31 PM Z
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, Gregg Kemp wrote:
> fyi...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/10/arts/10PRIN.html
>
> - Gregg Kemp
> _________________________________________
> Pinhole Visions at http://www.pinhole.com
>
This article is interesting for being so dumb. Sarah Boxer dwells on the
idiocy of Met. Musm wall labels & rightfully so (they are apparently
written by high-school interns with puerile imaginations), but she herself
is fairly clueless. For instance she wonders why Bernice Abbott's portrait
of Djuna Barnes printed 1925 is less sharp than same neg printed 1980,
speculating that it got fuzzy in fading. More likely, original was printed
in soft focus (1925). Whether or no, she is Times photo writer/critic &
ought to know SOMETHING about things like that which she clearly -- and
aggressively -- does not. Judging by past articles, she had a course
somewhere (Sarah Lawrence?) in modern art & remains incorrigibly in the
ignorant-opinionated class.
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST