From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 03/30/03-08:33:31 AM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>The Stewart prints aren't carbro -- I'd trust Tod Gangler's verdict that
>they're carbon. But there seems to be much available misinformation,
>either here or elsewhere. Went back to the gallery this PM, to get another
>look, &, having provoked husband's curiosity with my enthusiasm, let him
>have a look. Told the dealer that the all-knowing "list" said not carbro,
>he insisted was carbro because Aniere told him that the term carbon was
>only for black.
I wonder how one could get to the root of this misinformation. Surely
Aniere would not have told the dealer that "carbon was only for
black." I mean, how is possible that a printer of his skills could
be so misinformed about such a basic issue. He would almost certainly
have to know that the hybrid nature of carbro is in the very name,
i.e. car (carbon) + bro (bromide). So if he really chose to call his
carbon prints carbro, knowing that they are not, does not that
constitute a significant misrepresentation of his work? If the
intent, as Tod suggests, was to call some attention to the prints
because he felt that some people would be familiar with the term
carbro he may have succeeded, but in the end it may turn out that the
attention they are given focuses more on the misrepresentation.
Sandy King
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:26 PM Z CST