From: Phillip Murphy (pmurf@bellsouth.net)
Date: 03/30/03-09:32:49 AM Z
This somewhat reminds me of the name game that's played with the Daguerreotype
in many antique stores these days. Any Tintype or Ambrotype in a case has
suddenly become a Daguerreotype!
-Phillip
Sandy King wrote:
> 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