Judy,
Happy to know someone who still has a dial phone. I have one hidden away in
a box in my garage. I am inspired by you to get it out and use it. Modern
phones are too complex. You have to read an instruction manual in order to
program them and even use them. They have a lot of features that I suspect
we do not need. Another point --- those old dial phones lasted maybe 25
years or more. One is lucky to get five years out of a modern, pushbutton
electronic phone.
What really is the difference between "dialing" a number and pressing a
bunch of buttons? The phone manufacturers will tell you it's speed. But we
are talking about 15 seconds to "dial" a number as opposed to 5 seconds to
push a bunch of buttons. I think I can wait the additional ten seconds.
Also I suspect that this "speed" dialing leads to a lot of wrong numbers.
Maybe we really need the time it takes to "dial" a number to determine if we
really want to make the call.
ALSO,
If all the telemarketers had to dial each number, I guess we wouldn't get as
many calls from them.
Bob Schramm
Check out my web page at:
<br><br><br>>From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com><br>>Reply-To:
alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca<br>>To:
alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca<br>>Subject: on the bright side -- was
Re: Kodak B&W Paper Discontinued? News from Ilford at
least...<br>>Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:07:35 -0400
(EDT)<br>><br>><br>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Matthew Miller
wrote:<br>><br>>>I find it rather amusing that on an alt. photo
list that is <br>>>populated (mostly) with people who mix their own
chemicals and coat <br>>>their own paper, that this is such a big
topic. So kodak won't <br>>>make paper. Big deal. One of the
reasons I started alt. processes <br>>>was to lessen my dependency on
big business. <insert objectionable <br>>>political statement
here> :)<br>><br>>I was thinking the same thing... which is in
fact the meaning (or <br>>the main meaning) behind the term
"Post-Factory Photography" -- in <br>>the sense
of<br>>*after* the factory, as post-modernism means *after* modernism,
not <br>>the photography of factories that make
posts.<br>><br>>Although an article in Sunday's [July 24] New York
Times Arts & <br>>Leisure section about Chris Jordan's photographs of
industrial <br>>detritus does bring other possibilities to mind. He
photographs what <br>>the Times calls "Great Big Beautiful Piles of
Junk." But they are, <br>>besides the abstract graphic power of the
images, full of meaning as <br>>well... in that they "criticize the
excesses of consumerism by <br>>capturing it in minute detail." (I'd
contrast them to John Pfahl's <br>>photographs of dumps, which are not
only IMO much weaker as images, <br>>but seem, at least to me, rather
dilettantish, in that they lack <br>>strong meaning beyond the fact of
"I'm so artistic I make art from a
<br>>dump".)<br>><br>>I thought Jordan's most stunning image
(at least as reproduced in <br>>the paper) is what looks like a vast
field, maybe an acre, of <br>>discarded cell phones, which he achieved by
elaborate analog AND <br>>digital strategies, starting with an 8x10
format camera (which the <br>>article describes as if he were Merlin) and
then noodling two <br>>negatives together digitally.<br>><br>>We
also read that "if all the cellphones thrown out annually were
<br>>recycled, they would yield 202,000 ounces of gold (worth about $84.8
<br>>million) and keep 65,000 tons of toxic materials -- battery
<br>>components and elements like cadmium -- from landfills and
<br>>incinerators."<br>><br>>It's hard to say, or make that I
wouldn't *venture* to say, whether <br>>this would be better managed
under some other form of government <br>>than capitalism (what do you
think, Susan?), though I certainly have <br>>the impression that
socialist (or semi-socialist) governments, as in <br>>Scandinavia, manage
their environment better. That may of course be <br>>simply because their
countries are smaller and more homogeneous, <br>>hence more easily
managed.<br>><br>>My hunch, though, is that it's more the form of
election than of the <br>>economy -- and I blame it all on television.
Once it became <br>>necessary to buy television time to get elected, and
since that is <br>>so expensive, and the corporations can make those
large <br>>contributions as most private parties cannot, most of our
<br>>legislators both red and blue are [euphemism] kept persons of
<br>>corporations, as witness the fact that they have NOT increased fuel
<br>>mileage requirements for autos, not even a teensy weensy bit this
<br>>year, while they are, ye gods, tinkering with daylight saving hours
<br>>on the theory (read "hope" or even "pretense")
that they will thus <br>>save fossil fuel, lots of
luck.)<br>><br>>(That TV stations, or channels, or whatever you call
them, get their <br>>license from "our" government, thus
selling public air for private <br>>profit, is not this discussion,
although it does tend to be <br>>overlooked, as is a basic human
characteristic, called by old <br>>process Freudians
"denial.")<br>><br>>However, I don't mean to digress. My
first point is that these <br>>photographs in the vile pinko lying NY
Times ***liberal*** newspaper <br>>of record, look stunning. My second
point is that, for all my many <br>>documented sins, and those yet to be
discovered, let alone <br>>documented, I have never owned a cell phone,
in fact still use the <br>>rotary phone nailed to my wall in 1957, making
me feel, at last, <br>>very virtuous, in this respect at least. (Although
if people didn't <br>>buy stuff, our economy would collapse, but I don't
know what "ism" <br>>would cure that, short of back to the
farm-ism.)<br>><br>>My 3rd point is that I could well envision the
photographs of scenes <br>>the article describes, but doesn't show, of
junked cars, even junked <br>>SUVs I daresay -- presumably along the
lines of the photographer's <br>>"Recycling Yard No 1, Seattle,
2003," a scene of junked posts <br>>(although junked *wooden* posts
would be biodegradable, hence not a <br>>problem.)<br>><br>>As for
the vanishing Kodak paper, let's look on the bright side-- as
<br>>someone pointed out, you can do emulsions, you can buy paper, it
<br>>wouldn't be the end of the world. In fact the metaphor that comes to
<br>>mind is the training wheels on the bicycle. They're a crutch, no?
<br>>Maybe when you give them up and just ride around up & down on
two <br>>wheels, the biking gets<br>>better? Or maybe by then digital
printers will fully replace that <br>>pain in the buttsky silver gelatin
paper? True, they're not there <br>>yet, but they have come a long
way.<br>><br>>Oh, and a note to Kate -- your comment about not having
seen the <br>>"real thing" when you began gum printing made me
think, what the <br>>hell is the "real thing" in gum? IME, gum
styles tend to be so <br>>different that it's possible to possibly divine
the printer from the <br>>print. You might do that with SG from the
content, like, say, a <br>>Solgado or a Wegman, but not so easily I
daresay from the print.<br>><br>>OK, that probably is the bright
side...<br>><br>>cheers,<br>><br>>Judy<br>><br>
Received on Sun Jul 24 23:12:48 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/25/05-05:31:52 PM Z CST