Re: Presentation Question

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 09/11/04-11:43:40 PM Z
Message-id: <>

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, PhotoGecko Austin wrote:
> And if I spend a lot of energy around elaborate or creative framing the
> framing becomes the point, which defeats my purpose.

I guess what I'm saying is that a "plain" frame can be a disaster if it's
a disaster... It needs to set the work off. It's axiomatic that not
every woman, for instance, will look good in the same dress, hat, or hair

> I want the
> presentation to be as mundane as Special K in skim milk. I want it to
> isolate the image and be invisible--nothing less or more. I don't want
> anybody to say, "Oh, my--what a clever presentation!" I mean, it's not a
> tuna steak, fer gosh sakes.

But again, think how excellent hair can make a human face look 1000 times
better... Of course I myself am EXTREMELY interested in frames, and think
a good frame makes an image doubly compelling. Are you familiar with John
Dugdale's frames?

And have you ever TASTED Special K in skim milk? Just the title ruins my

> Judy loved Bea Nettles' work in books-- why might that be? Maybe because
> the work was visible on the page. . . ? But in the thick black frames, the
> frames became the point. . . ?

Not so much that they became the point, rather that they overwhelmed the
pictures. I think the problem was doing the frames by rote, without a
visual check on what was really happening.


Received on Sat Sep 11 23:43:53 2004

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