From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/01/02-02:01:33 PM Z
Ah Pete, with all the exercises in futility available, trying to speak
reason against an *emotion* (in your case "loyalty" to a friend) is the
most futile. And yet I admit, I am guilty of that very exercise.
However, one exercise in futility I checked at the very outset was doing
the Anderson/Scopick "gum-pigment-ratio test."
Why? Because as I have explained and explained and you will NOT listen
(!!!) the PREMISE is false. Pick up the phone & call Mike Ware. And what
is the point of a test based on a false premise? That is, the dichromate
is part of the equation. But even before Ware had affirmed that, I figured
out by myself that the paper changes with each coat applied & developed,
at least for the first few (as my friend Dave Rose explained right on this
list, tho I don't have his phone number).
I will, when time permits, attempt to single out some strands from the
tangle you forward from Scopick, but address now your claim about the
*paper* being the culprit. It would be my great pleasure to be your
hostess on a trip to New York, and ALSO show you the shoebox of tests that
show -- when a paper is properly gelatin sized, nearly all will clear
quite nicely from many gum-pigment combos. Printmaking papers, etching
papers, so-called watercolor papers, whatever, give them a nice coat of
gelatin & hardener & pick a nice friendly gum & a pigment of genial
disposition, you can practically do no wrong.
Or to be more precise -- not all will clear from every combo, but most
will clear from some. In other words, the generalisation about the
*paper* being the culprit is wrong. (And permit me to add that if you had
done these tests on *gelatine sized paper*, sized as I advise, which you
did NOT, you might never have invented FoTempera, so perhaps it's just as
well!)
However, saying that "fine prints" made on the basis of a false premise
PROVES that premise is, oh dear, another exercise in futility. (Just think
what they might have accomplished on the basis of reality!). Or if I
sneeze and a bus backfires at the same time, does that mean my sneeze
caused the bus to backfire?
And let me add that I have not, cannot, will not, and don't think anyone
can or should, try to make a connection between the "quality," "fame,"
"beauty," "success", or whatever of the ART and the "truth" of anyone's
beliefs in a matter of, please pardon the expression, *science.*. Some of
the most technically and scientifically adept works of "art" in the
history of the universe are dreadful as "art." And some utterly sublime
works are based on mumbo jumbo. This is entirely beside the point and
proves nothing -- except sophistry. (I would not dream of presenting "art"
credentials as proof of something in the realm of fact, or science, or
whatever you call these technical issues. Nor should anyone. That simply
muddies the water.)
And when you say,
"the Anderson/Henney&Dudley/Crawford/Scopick pigment test gets the newbee
into the ballpark,"
I must again reply "nonsense." I do not equate all these sources, but say
the ballpark was due as much to the major distributors and the zeitgeist.
The time was right. And if we're going to credit any one, credit Betty
Hahn, Robert Fichter, and some of their cohorts, who didn't publish
technical manuals, but whose work brought those media to critical
attention. But imagine how much more progress (not just in the ballpark
but hitting a few runs) could have been made were the FACTS correct. I
have heard again and again from folks who said they couldn't make gum
WORK. And for now and forevermore I reserve the right to say something is
WRONG, and I have the EVIDENCE -- whatever opprobrium this unleashes, and
shame on those who cringe at the thought, or want to punish me for some
OTHER reason or other I cannot imagine, as I am the most adorable of
uppity women.)
I note, by the way, that once I found out a few basic facts by my own
tests, suddenly my students' work got markedly better. In fact English
teachers, orthodontists, actuaries and the like, made good gum prints on
their very first tries.
So please, don't number me numbers, don't tell me how many folks were in
awe, or how many saw the such and such prints. For all most of them knew,
the prints could have been made out of green cheese. I mean, if numbers &
applause made truth, The Celestine Prophecy would be a great work of
science.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST