Re: warning: bad word...RE: to mat or not

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Cactus Cowboy (cactus@tritel.net)
Date: 02/01/02-12:00:17 AM Z

Dear Roger,

You copy and post a truncated message that's nearly nine months old, without
adding any comments or explanation. What's your point?

Dave in Wyoming

----- Original Message -----
From: "roger.kockaerts" <roger.kockaerts@chello.be>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 6:13 AM
Subject: Re : warning: bad word...RE: to mat or not

>
> ----------
> >De : Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
> >À : alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> >Objet : warning: bad word...RE: to mat or not
> >Date : Jeu 5 avr 2001 10:04
> >
>
> >
> >On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Dave Rose wrote:
> >CUT
> >
> >> looking at. They really don't care if it's a gum print, platinum,
> >> Cibachrome, conventional B&W silver print, or (heaven forbid!) a
photocopy.
> >> So why bother proving to the uneducated masses that your prints are
> >> 'handmade' by shoving the evidence (torn paper edges, scribbled notes
and
> >> brush strokes) in their face? Will they understand or appreciate what
> >> they're looking at? Not likely. (Yes, I understand the comeback to
that
> >> question.... "we need to educate the masses"!!!). Better to wow them
with
> >
> >
> >Dave, screw the "uneducated masses." I'm not trying to wow them -- or
> >anyone like them. Just myself.
> >
> >> the image itself.... isn't that what really mattered anyway when you
tripped
> >> the shutter?
> >
> >actually not... my best pictures are always made by the camera, behind my
> >back.
> >
> >Judy
> >
> >
>

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST