From: Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 07/26/03-11:14:12 AM Z
At 12:01 PM 7/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
And BTW Dave, I also spent part of a day at the RPS in Bath looking at gum
prints with curator Pam Roberts.
>Although I heartily agree with Katharine's comments of Wednesday ("the
>fact is that detailed gum prints with clarity and > gradation are NOT
>rarely seen in gum, and to say so tends to stick in> the craw of gum
>printers who have been making such prints for years,") & expect to add
>some comment at the 165 mark, on the matter of paint brands I think a
>footnote is in order now.
We had better than 150 people in attendance. A large segment of this group
was comprised of highly knowledgeable and astute workers in alternative
processes. Stuart's work, from the buzz in the room, was viewed as being
beyond what anyone had seen in terms of depth, detail, and clarity.
Dr. Dusan Stulik expressed a concurring view to me but then he is only the
Senior Scientist and Chief Conservator at the Getty and working on
conserving the photo collection (he is then currently studying the Niepce
first photograph.) But then what does he know?
Detail and clarity are one thing but I have not seen anything to compare to
Stuart's latest work or that of his compatriots in crime, Kerik, Clay, or
Stan K.
In a way I wish I had not seen Stuart's original prints so I could feel
comfortable pooh poohing them myself.
--Dick Sullivan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 08/07/03-03:34:51 PM Z CST