John Callan wrote:
> In a message dated 10/17/98 1:10:21 PM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> <<problem w/ formal education>>
> Formal, informal, tolerating the snobs, finding a quiet place to think a
> thought, finding someone to show your hands how to roll film from a canister
> to a developing tank, because no matter how it was explained, or how much to
> paid attention, it wasn't going to work ontil someone showed you in the dark.
> We learn a lot in the dark. some of us create the dark so that we can learn.
> Is any of this making sense to anyone but me?
We get the picture and you did a good job of developing your veral
imagery. If some people did not get it at least you gave it a good shot.
Just remember though, now a days things are not as black and white as
they use to be. The resulting use of modern technology and the one hour
turn around at the photo shop has dated your darkroom techniques. It
puts into question the validity of the imagery because not as many
people will be able to understand its real meaning. If education is of a
single 'formal system' and must 'fit within a conveniently advertised
package' then the darkroom is an invalid example and if that is the case
then so is preservation outside of the interests of accademics. Where
does that put experience whether from the darkroom or else where. Is
Ken's oink part of the picture and can unschooled pigs be credited for
becoming cured hams based on their experience in the smokehouse.
Now I ask you, does this make any sense?
Kind of obvious that even when I work with my old red light on, I still
lose picture because my door is not light tight.