Maybe you have a better perspecitive of Wadler and/or some history of
reading her that I've missed (I generally read the NYTimes at least once
a day, but seldom the human interest stuff, because mostly it's neither
human nor interesting to me. It was the photography aspect that grabbed
me on the main page.), but I didn't get the snear either. It sounded to
me like she was using her report to report to Coffer as well as Times
readers, saying "Hey, Coffer, here's why no women will live your
life..." It would have been a better article if they'd sent a
photographer, though.
Pam
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Robert Newcomb wrote:
>
>> This is an interesting photog related article from the NY Times about
>> wet plate photographer John Coffer and how he lives in the 1860s
>> style today.
>>
>
> I read that today, and thought it a particularly ignorant "interview"
> bordering on nasty -- which may be more likely when you send
> non-photographers to do an interview with someone whose work is beyond
> their ken. What Wadler dwelt on was the guy's "woman" problem. She
> never had an inkling (or care) that he resurrected a technology that
> was essentially dead (for instance).. She wants to know how often he
> takes a bath and washes his sheets. Her sneer and condescension were
> palpable.
>
> I suppose coverage in the Times won't hurt Coffer, but he's been
> better places (like Post-Factory !). In any event the piece does the
> Times no credit and shame on the "reporter."
>
> Judy
>
>
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/03/garden/03tintype.html?ei=5070&en=1146e6403263ac54&ex=1155268800&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1154635285-GSaFhQV/8XSzTMOjwe9FFQ
>>
>>
>> Robert N
>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on 08/03/06-08:48:38 PM Z
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 09/01/06-12:02:08 PM Z CST