Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" 
<steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> Regarding the "Nude Policy" isn't it ironic that they can state 
that.....and then have a prominent Betty Page pic (bent over) in 
one of the articles.

There is another example of the nude thang back in the 
Exposure section; an ad for some guy, and it's an OK shot I 
guess, of a woman, looking kinda sacksy in her eyes, kinda 
come here. I looked and looked for the "fine art" aspect of it, then 
just gave up.

I also read the AIPAD article after posting that first post last
night, 
and this morning, I can honestly say that this magazine is just 
lame. The article had that "Thurston Howell the Third/Gilligan's 
Island" tone of voice to it, in a way that was almost laughable. It's 
obviously directed at that small market of photo collectors, trying 
to be all high-brow and all, which I guess on some level is fine, 
but to me, it had this tone of some scheister gallery guy 
escorting the 98-year-old wealthy patron around his gallery, 
trying to drop as many four syllable words as he could, in order 
to pry open the checkbook. (But maybe that's how it really is in 
the real world? Eesh!)

About your nipple/wilted-flower/mountain/desert-sand count, that 
would be fun. It almost makes you wonder this chicken-egg 
thing: do all these photographers just accidentally get inspired 
and commit their life to this similar content, or, do they just 
realize that this content is all that's ever gonna sell in a gallery, 
so I'd better shoot that, or go back to that desk job on the 16th 
floor?

I threw the magazine away. And I'm with some of Bill Agee's 
comments; the gallery world is insular and strange. And 
honestly, I just don't want to drag around an 8x10 any more. And I 
have no inner need to photograph my mother nekkid. 

I don't know. It just left a strange taste in my mouth...

MT