Re: Presentation Question

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 09/11/04-02:50:07 AM Z
Message-id: <>

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, PhotoGecko Austin wrote:

> . . . . darn. . . .
> Now I've gotta take my prints (both of them) out of those thick black frames.

> So, what *should* I do with them?

If you only have two you can't make a row of them on the wall, but I'd
suggest painting them red anyway or you could leave them out in the rain
(without the photographs) for a year or so.

Meanwhile, speaking of shucks, what is this golden rectangle rule of
thirds business. Schuyler, you have nailed your thesis to the wall. I
promise that I won't say another word, except I'm curious about how you
use those rules and if others agree...


> On Sep 10, 2004, at 10:05 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Schuyler Grace wrote:
>>> .... And if the final product isn't presented
>>> properly, all the effort expended on the process can be wasted ...
>> My alarm bells ring for this one... if we are supposed to be freethinking
>> creative artists, we ought to be able to present work according to our own
>> freethinking creative sensibility, not by what is all too often a lifeless
>> convention.
>> I recall some time around 1980, the first show of work I'd ever seen by Bea
>> Nettles. I *loved* her work in books, but when I walked into the gallery
>> all I could see was a row of same size black wood frames the length of 3
>> walls. The work, neatly matted inside, was invisible.
>> So today you probably wouldn't put your work in thick black frames... But
>> that was the "proper" thing then. Beware...
>> Judy
Received on Sat Sep 11 02:50:20 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 10/01/04-09:17:55 AM Z CST