Re: Colloid photosensitivity

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 04/29/04-07:14:30 PM Z
Message-id: <>

> I think this is a pretty good example of the sort of
> thing Ryuji Suzuki has warned about old literature. I've
> found the same thing in both photographic literature and in
> my researches into sound recording some years ago. One must
> try to trace statements back to original sources. Sometimes
> those sources are mis-quoted, sometimes the those citing the
> work haven't really read it (meaning it doesn't really say
> what the citer thinks it does), and sometimes the original
> work is just plain wrong. I'm afraid this sort of sloppy
> scholarship is not confined to old publications, one can
> find all sorts of examples in more recent popular work.

Hey Richard, you're singing my song. What beats me though is why I got a
chorus of groans instead of hosannas when I cited chapter and verse on
that very theme.

I thought BTW that my last example -- what looked in fact like an out and
out lie in a citation from Mees -- was outstanding. And think of the
others we missed... Reminds me AGAIN of Ivan Karp in 1976 when someone
asked what he thought of the NY Times. His reply (as recorded in
Mutiny's report of the event), was, "The *arts* part of the Times, the
world's greatest newspaper, is a shoddy piece of trash. John Russell is
the worst instance of brain drain in the last 20 years. He doesn't know
what he's talking about.(I worry terribly about the stamp page... they
could be giving some really terrible advice.)"

The Times art crit is marginally better today -- in some areas. But 50
years from now, assuming there are still folks on earth who can read and
write and have access to documents of history, all these writings will be
taken for fact.

Received on Thu Apr 29 19:15:41 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 05/14/04-02:14:32 PM Z CST