From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 08/31/02-08:22:38 PM Z
On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
> ....Point well taken, Judy. But isn't the "frame" itself a kind of
> two-dimensional "box"? Arthur
>
Surely you jest. But just in case --- EVERY photo has a frame, even
man-mountain Dean, even Lisa Lyons -- or not-- & it is distinctly NOT part
of "the image," from which it is generally separated ANYWAY by a mat.
Only Ruth puts her babes (bland, blank, & usually supine) IN A REAL BOX.
Why that was EVER considered creative and artistic I'll have to put on a
long list of questions I cannot answer, but I feel honor bound to make the
point.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:51 AM Z CST