From: pete (temperaprint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 12/16/01-09:49:05 AM Z
on 15/12/01 7:07 pm, Judy Seigel at jseigel@panix.com wrote:
>
> Pete,
>
> What you say is true in the abstract of course, but loses sight of the
> REASON for my rant: It was the citation of Scopick as *authority* in some
> Matter or other (lost in the HTML by now).
I too have little time for the *authority* concept but isnıt this just what
you are trying to establish a Seigel *authority*
>
>> I think you are exaggerating this issue beyond its real importance. Most of
>> The book is perfectly sound as to the business about the Anderson
>> Gum-pigment ratio test, which he couldn't POSSIBLY have tested against a
>> Control.
>
> Why not? *I* tested it. What's the problem?
I think you have got this out of context the POSSIBLY was from your original
email. I am not saying that. Anyway whatıs the big deal, I know of several
gum printers who have said whilst the gum test wasnıt conclusive, they
gained an intimate understanding of the principle underlying pigment stain.
So out of perceived evil came a net gain, ;-<
I have not done this test my self so it might be interesting try this out in
the near future if I can squeeze it in some time
>
>> The Real culprit is Paul Anderson not David Scopick. He just went on the
>> Authority of other sources such as Dudly & Henny .We can take this a stage
>> Further if we are to dam 'The Gum Bichromate book ' because of this
>
> No, the real culprit is whoever passes along 2nd hand information without
> Either qualifying or testing. And that's why I stick my neck out & ruffle
> feathers here and elsewhere. (It's just like going into therapy to stop
> The chain of family dysfunction passed down from generation to generation
> !!!!) I could trace that Paul Anderson mistake (what I call the "seems
> Logical disease") to Henney & Dudley (or is it Dudley & Henney?) where it
> Was actually by Anderson, then from there to Crawford Keepers of Light
> (tho it may have been elsewhere also that I missed), and from there to
> Scopick, and from Scopick to John Schaefer's "Ansel Adams Guide #2." And
> who knows where else from those "authorities"?
OK fair enough but arenıt you exaggerating the seriousness of this
Misdemeanour
>
> As I noted in first Post-Factory, Kodak used to boast that it spent 3
> million dollars a day on research (or some figure like that)-- NECESSARY
> for its commercial viability. Our processes had no commercial value, and
> no interest from engineers. When Paul Anderson made up a cockamamie
> "test", which seemed plausible because so elaborate & longwinded, they
> either couldn't care less, or figured he was as "scientific" as they were
> -- Or both. But that's just a handy example... as we have seen on this
> List, a LOT of assumptions are not so, or only when you stand looking
> East.
Again you are bashing Paul Anderson who also made a major contribution, to
the world of the Historical control processes as they were then called, all
this info was written in the between the wars, when one did not question
*Authority* once established.
>
> Is it unreasonable to suggest that a book selling info have tested the
> Info it's marketing? That's a fault in much current alt lit...
In the best of all possible worlds Yes, but life just aynt like that, if you
have ever had a book published then you know what I mean. The publisher
often tries to take over, through perceived concepts of marketing which
often have nothing to do with the spirit of the book. Often making it
difficult to write from your own experience alone. All I know is the book I
presented to focal Press in 1978 was not the book that was published in
1980.
>
>
>> Inaccuracy then we have to dam all the other books containing it including
>
> I'm not damning them -- I'm saying this is the one that's CURRENT, where
> Itıs coming from now, also that whoever presents his or her book as
> Authority has a responsibility for the material beyond just cut and paste.
> And *I* have a responsibility to the facts & the trouble-with-alt-lit,
> Also. I mean if I know the water may be suspect am I supposed to shut up
> About it to be nice?
Of course you should not shut up. I would be the first to defend your right
for free speech as I did recently; we have far too much PC already!
No it is just that whenever David Scopick is mentioned out comes the Paul
Anderson cudgel, but no mention of how you feel about his first book only
scathing comments about the second
> Said, I thought his first book was a delight, charming and wonderful. <
All I am requesting is a reasonable balance
>
>> In an ideal world we would all be perfect but it just donıt happen like
>> That. We are lucky if we get it right 95% of the time, and as you go on to
>
> But Pete, if we can't point to OBVIOUS error because the fellow is a doll,
> How will we ever get anywhere? In my opinion, I'll add, this discussion of
> The "authorities" is essential and as useful to alt as any one thing in
> Any book.
The guy is far from a doll but he is a good author, very good teacher, and
an excellent Gum Printer.
>
>> I am sure if I took a magnifying glass to your excellent PFP magazine there
>> Would be something I could take issue with. If I felt the need. However I
>
> I wish you would -- I'd love it. But aside from the fact that I know to
> Cover my ass --
Why do you need to cover your ass? Looks all right from where I am standing
:-->>
>
> Also
> Circumstances conspired to give me a series of piss-and-vinegar students
> Who LOVED to make trouble? I had to test a LOT just to stay even. And
> Learned how iffy *my* sources had been, etc. etc.
Yes they are the great educator's I have almost finished teaching but miss
them all ready
>
>> The point that I am trying to make is letıs taking the 95% if it works, and
>> Be happy with that.
>
> That 95% is a figure you pluck from air. And often as not the DEVIL is in
> That other 5%. Or 50% if you care to BET on a figure. And even at 95%, if
> Youıre jumping over a river, and make only 95%; you'll land in the drink.
Again over exaggeration you would not even get your feet wet gum printing is
not a life or death situation
>
> Also, you say "if it works." There are also false assumptions that skew
> The practice -- like the gum pigment test which made everyone do itty
> bitty pastel layers. NOT a contribution, but a debit.
Perhaps they liked pastel colours in any case, any self respecting real
alternative worker would change the methodology to suite there internal
vision, if there is any real problem, it is mindless obedience to
*authority* whether it be Pervade by Scopick Seigel or Fredrick
>
>> Well I did not, on the contrary I had a net profit -- related to stuff I'd
>> tested & taught for 35 years: -->>
>
> But you were doing a *variant* -- and just the spelling could make
> everything different. And where's your gratitude that you now know about
> The gum-pigment business?
No it is only in the last 10 to 15 years that have used egg as a substitute
for gum, however I must admit unknowingly. I did use gloy gum thinking that
it was gum arabic, which is as you pointed out a few years ago, is in fact
PVA, so I will concede your point.
>
>> BTW I think "the Peter principle.'" was named after me!
>
> I took that as a given, but oooops, failed to test.
Shame on you Judy I would have thought that it would be self evident without
testing !
>
My best wishes
Pete
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST