From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 08/18/02-12:32:44 AM Z
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Shannon Stoney wrote:
> Judy wrote:
>
> > These shows have both been discussed at length in the Times by folks with,
> > needless to say & of course, their own imperfections, but guaranteed more
> > knowledgeable & reliable photo wise than M. Perl, whom I would not trust
> > to tell me the Pope is Catholic.
>
> Just out of curiosity: why do you not trust Jed Perl? I know you don't
> like him, but I've been wondering why. Do you know him? Is he a jerk or
> something? Or do you just usually disagree with what he writes?
Good grief Shannon, did you forget the list "discussion" about Perl &
Conrad Richter?
Since you seemed at the time to aim what you considered a flaming arrow at
me (saying "if anyone is still interested in thinking about whether the
> Emperor has no clothes or not, **she** [my emphasis] might like to
peruse the most > recent issue of The New Republic)" I tried to be a
sport & set the record straight. How demoralizing to find my efforts all
in vain !
But OK, that's life.... Now the short answer is, and I say it without fear
of contradiction, every remark Perl has made about photography that I've
seen in print or in quotation has been inane, backwards, perversely wrong
headed and so ill informed as to disgrace both him & his magazine. He is
in short the Rush Limbaugh of photo crit.
For longer answer, explanations, citations and examples, see April 8,
subject line, "Jed Perl / was Sandy's kallitype method; good and bad
photography", among other list exchanges April 3 to 11th of this year.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:49 AM Z CST