Judy Seigel wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Richard Sullivan wrote:
> mention, but that watch, many batteries and leather bands later,
>still keeps perfect time.
>
>Permit me also to mention that this discussion, according to the
>currently proposed rules for the alt-photo list, is OFF TOPIC ! And
>yet, judging by the messages arriving while I write, it's stirring
>interest, getting responses.
What Dick actually said is quoted below.
"Students are strongly attracted to the handmade but are a bit
confused about why. Things like permanence, or image detail come up
but I quickly quash that line of talk as it leads to a dead end. The
handmade has an allure precisely because it is handmade. Not because
it is any more permanent or holds more detail, or any other
attribute. The example I sometimes use is to ask if anyone has a
Rolex watch. Usueally not but someone will have a Tag Heure or other
expensive watch but even not the point can still be made. I ask why
it cost $3000.00. Durability, accuracy, get thrown in. I then point
out that I have a Timex Radio watch on that costs $39.00 and keeps
constant time to the 100th of a second by logging into the atomic
clock in Fort Collins Colorado. I then toss it on the floor. In just
about every quality one can ascribe to a watch the Timex wins but no
one will either toss their Rolex on the floor or trade me for for the
Timex. The Rolex has craft value. It is expensive to make and takes a
good deal of hand skills in it's manufacture. A digitally >printed<
image is in effect the Timex of the print world. A fine handmade
print is the Rolex."
What Dick Sullivan established, and every effectively in my opinion,
was the analogous relationship in terms of expenditure of energy and
craftsmanship, between the making of a handmade photography and the
making of a hand made watch. Absolutely nothing off topic about his
message, IMO. If I may be permitted to say so.
Sandy
Received on Tue Mar 15 22:23:52 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 04/08/05-09:31:01 AM Z CST