From: pete (temperaprint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 02/02/02-04:11:04 AM Z
Judy,
I disagree that the Anderson/Scopick "gum-pigment-ratio test." is
Based on a false premise. It is obvious that we are not going to agree on
this issue, so I think it best if we agree to disagree and let the matter
rest, let history decide!
my best wishes
Pete
on 1/2/02 8:01 pm, Judy Seigel at jseigel@panix.com wrote:
>
> 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