Re: NY Times review of "Photography: Processes, Preservation and Conservation...

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

CMPatti@aol.com
Date: 02/11/01-12:28:34 AM Z


Well, Judy Seigel and I certainly do read Boxer's review differently. While
she sees Boxer as trying to explain why the older Abbott print is fuzzy (so
that she can criticize the explanation as "dumb"), I read Boxer as
illustrating the type of questions the typical viewer might ask given the
exhibit's lack of explanation. And while Judy suggests that Boxer favors the
fuzzy presentation (to paint her as inconsistent), I get just the opposite
impression from Boxer's description of the earlier print as "soft, old and
brownish" and her statement that "much is made of how much better Barnes
looks soft, fuzzy and brown" (which, to me, has more than a whiff of sarcasm).

Chris Patti


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST