From: James Romeo (jamesromeo@mac.com)
Date: 02/10/01-10:58:03 PM Z
Judy
How right you are on Sarah Boxer. Do you rember the days when NYT had people
on the staff who know photography?
James
> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:22:31 -0500 (EST)
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: NY Times review of "Photography: Processes, Preservation and
> Conservation" exhibit
>
>
>
> 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