Gallery stance on Prints: Film or Digital?
Kelso Lundeen
newsgroup. It makes for good reading. Interesting, too.
My question is this: for fine-art photographers who exhibit in
galleries: do galleries make a distinction between "film" prints and
"digital" prints?
If a print is from a digital camera, does this increase or decrease
its sale value?
Or does the sale value remain the same -- digital or silver?
Does the original medium -- film or digital -- influence the print's
"fineart-ness"?
I ask not to start a flame war, but because I'm curious. I understand
(or think I understand) the positions of the pro-film and the
pro-digital crowd. But I was walking in a Chicago gallery the other
day and I saw an exhibit of black and white prints taken with a Nikon
digital. (Didn't say if it was a D1 or Coolpix or what.)
They were nice prints -- very Zone System-like -- but because they
were 100% digital -- digital camera, digital manipulation -- they
seemed less compelling to me. But they were beautiful prints, don't
get me wrong. And when I left the gallery, I started to think about
why I felt this way. I mean, if I hadn't known, I would have assumed
they were prints from film manipulated in a traditional darkroom.
I started to think about authenticity issues -- and about whether or
not digital manipulation somehow falsifies -- or reduces --
authenticity. But that's absurd, I thought. What matters is the image
-- the end result -- who cares where it comes from, right?
But why is it that traditional darkroom technique still seems more
authentic? Is this just a personal bias I have to "get over" in order
to enjoy the prints?
Four days later, I'm still vexed and bothered by it.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Hassel Weems
--
Hassel Weems Photography
Plugged In Design Web Sites & Graphic Design
www.hasselweems.com
678-614-0717
"Kelso Lundeen" <kelsol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q1kt5u8p26mtv8kne...@4ax.com...
jw&a
"Hassel Weems" <has...@pluggedindesign.com> wrote in message
news:u5tl41n...@corp.supernews.com...
> Art is a product of the artist, not his media.
>
> --
> Hassel Weems Photography
Of course that's true, but from a gallery standpoint, they need to display
what sells. From a personal point of view, I would think that part of the
allure of having a print made by Ansel Adams would be the fact that Ansel
(and/or persons working under his direction) actually had a hand in making
the print, and the knowledge that there are a limited number of such prints
(an edition). With digital, that isn't the case. If Great Photographer
creates a good digital image, there's no reason why Great Photographer can't
print an infinite number of these prints. After Great Photographer dies, his
heirs can flood the market with countless new original prints by Great
Photographer.
If I were a collector, I can't help but think I would consider those issues.
Bob
South Carolina
Gordon Moat
think it is less of a technical issue, and that compelling content would
seem to be a greater criteria for inclusion in a gallery.
There are many ways to arrive at a final image. Many digital inkjet
prints are called Giclée or IRIS prints, and these were last digital
files, whether scanned from film, or digital camera.
Photographic process prints are available in many variations, such as
albumen prints, gelatine silver prints, platinum prints, etc. They are
usually noted as such. The perception would seem to indicate that these
originated on film, but that is not always the case.
Dan Burckholder uses a technique of scanning film, digitally
manipulating (PhotoShop), converting the file for output using printing
press technology negatives (at the same size as the final photographic
print), then making his own platinum paper, and exposing the image onto
that using sunlight. His technique sometimes uses several negatives to
produce the end result. He could just as easily use a digital camera for
some of the images. He does not advertise the fact that these are
manipulated images.
Art Wolf (nature photographer {perhaps I have the name slightly wrong})
was criticized a few years ago when it was revealed that he manipulated
images to produce his nature books. The photography was still great, but
some felt the quality was diminished by manipulation.
Personally, I feel that PhotoShop is just another creative tool. I think
that too many people in the general population think that digitally
manipulated means pushing a couple buttons, and out comes a Rembrandt
(or Ansel Adams) every time you push the RETURN key. Many digitally
manipulated images can take more time than some photographic images take
in the darkroom.
Photography in general is still not as highly regarded in galleries and
museums as painting. Of course, painting has been around longer, but
photography is getting a bit more wall space and recognition than a few
years ago.
I saw a very nicely done photography art exhibit at the Houston Museum
of Fine Art in December. I went on their free day, and it was fairly
packed in there. Very nice to see that much interest.
One of the images was quite huge. I walked up to it and could see some
individual Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black dots in the lighter areas. A
lady was standing there and wondered aloud how the image was created. I
explained that it was done on a giant printer used for making billboards
on single sheets of vinyl. She seemed very interested, and gained some
appreciation for the image from my explanation, since she felt it must
have been expensive and difficult to produce. She also stated that it
served well as art, since it took an ordinary aspect of life (billboard
printing) and used it in an unexpected way. When I walked away from that
one, I noticed her explaining the image to several other people.
Some other things to think about. Oil painting, when properly done, can
easily last several hundred years. Oil paintings are also each one of a
kind, unlike photographic prints, which can be a series. Of the various
photographic print processes, some have more longevity than others,
though many are mostly dependant on the paper. Archival papers are now
quite good, and some older photographic prints have survived well. The
original films of some old images (B/W mostly) have survived fairly
well. Current claims for Giclée (IRIS) and other high end inkjet
processes may be able to achieve the results that testing shows, and
last for a hundred years or more. Some of these high end processes can
print on the same canvas used for oil painting, so paper deterioration
could be less of an issue.
True monetary values for various art forms are more dictated by market
considerations than technology. Painters sometimes listed their
materials, but rarely what brushes they used. Why should fine art
photographers acknowledge anything more than the paper and printing
process?
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Unknown
Assuming Great Photographer's relatives do not commit fraud by attempting to
sign Great Photographer's signature to the prints, the post death prints
will have much less value than those signed by GP him/herself. Prints made
by AA differ greatly in value (or at least price) depending on when they
were printed and for whom. The number of prints in existance is also a
factor, but it is offset by the fact that the most popular images get higher
prices and usually they were printed a lot.
The galleries I frequent all have some digital prints. Most of the
photographers start with film, but even that's changing as digital cameras
get better. Robert Weingarten is represented by the Weston Gallery, his work
starts as film but is printed digitally.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Casey Prout
done IDENTICALY the same but with crayons. Yes I know he didnt have the
option of using crayons...but it makes you think. Art does relie on the
media, look at the idea of a book vs a movie. Yet GOOD (no not all movies
are art) are a art form that taken to say a tv show is not the same!
--
Cussen Trouble
OOOO 019
Offical Dennys Security
High Priest to the Goddess of Love, Singular Prankster of Silent Giddiness
and
Mysterious Hoper of Passionate Rebirth
74.4% FaireFolk corrupt
Kintyre Phriekorps
Smoke Jumper, AFR Fire Brigade Engine Co.#1
Teaching History Through Faire Play
ARE YOU A REAL PATRON??????????
"Excuse me, have you seen trouble? For I am looking
for trouble!"
"Hassel Weems" <has...@pluggedindesign.com> wrote in message
news:u5tl41n...@corp.supernews.com...
J Greely
>My question is this: for fine-art photographers who exhibit in
>galleries: do galleries make a distinction between "film" prints and
>"digital" prints?
If you are simply referring to the method of producing the print,
there was in fact a lengthy battle before "something that came from a
printer" was accepted as a fine-art reproduction of paintings or
photographs. Amusingly, the turning point appears to have been when
the folks who make the high-end Iris printers got the clever idea of
replacing the plebian term "inkjet" with the artsy French "giclee".
As far as photographs are concerned, there was some initial resistance
in the fine-print market, largely due to concerns that the images
would be deceptively manipulated between the scanning and the
printing, but the community has since embraced high-end digital
printing to the point where some chemical processes are being dropped
by pro labs (specifically, Ilfochrome and Type R printing).
>If a print is from a digital camera, does this increase or decrease
>its sale value?
Note that none of what I've said has anything to do with digital
capture. If your image is not deceptively manipulated, I don't think
anyone will care what it came from, except the occasional exclusionary
photo contest or people involved with obscure artistic movements like
the misnamed FoundView.
If it is extensively manipulated, people will react negatively if you
claim it as a "photograph", but will likely cheer you on if you just
call it "art".
>Or does the sale value remain the same -- digital or silver?
I suspect you'll find that the sale value has more to do with the
track record of the artist than her choice of medium.
-j
Tom Holub
jw&a <jw...@usenetserver.com> wrote:
)
)"Hassel Weems" <has...@pluggedindesign.com> wrote in message
)news:u5tl41n...@corp.supernews.com...
)> Art is a product of the artist, not his media.
)>
)> --
)> Hassel Weems Photography
)
)
)Of course that's true, but from a gallery standpoint, they need to display
)what sells. From a personal point of view, I would think that part of the
)allure of having a print made by Ansel Adams would be the fact that Ansel
)(and/or persons working under his direction) actually had a hand in making
)the print, and the knowledge that there are a limited number of such prints
)(an edition). With digital, that isn't the case. If Great Photographer
)creates a good digital image, there's no reason why Great Photographer can't
)print an infinite number of these prints. After Great Photographer dies, his
)heirs can flood the market with countless new original prints by Great
)Photographer.
It's funny that you bring up Ansel Adams as an example, because his work
is often criticized as being diluted by over-exposure. Too many prints,
too many postcards, too many coffee table books.
I personally don't think it diminishes the value of the work at all, though
it might diminsh the value of a particular print. But clearly, it's not
an issue that's specific to digital photography.
-Tom
Demetrios Hung, APA
wrote:
>One of the images was quite huge. I walked up to it and could see some
>individual Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black dots in the lighter areas. A
>lady was standing there and wondered aloud how the image was created. I
>explained that it was done on a giant printer used for making billboards
>on single sheets of vinyl. She seemed very interested, and gained some
>appreciation for the image from my explanation, since she felt it must
>have been expensive and difficult to produce. She also stated that it
>served well as art, since it took an ordinary aspect of life (billboard
>printing) and used it in an unexpected way. When I walked away from that
>one, I noticed her explaining the image to several other people.
Sheeesh, instant expert. Damn gallery broads.
jw&a
<Tom Thackrey> wrote in message news:3c5ed...@Usenet.com...
> > print an infinite number of these prints. After Great Photographer dies,
> > his
> > heirs can flood the market with countless new original prints by Great
> > Photographer.
> >
> > If I were a collector, I can't help but think I would consider those
> > issues.
>
> Assuming Great Photographer's relatives do not commit fraud by attempting
to
> sign Great Photographer's signature to the prints, the post death prints
> will have much less value than those signed by GP him/herself. Prints made
> by AA differ greatly in value (or at least price) depending on when they
> were printed and for whom. The number of prints in existance is also a
> factor, but it is offset by the fact that the most popular images get
higher
> prices and usually they were printed a lot.
>
> The galleries I frequent all have some digital prints. Most of the
> photographers start with film, but even that's changing as digital cameras
> get better. Robert Weingarten is represented by the Weston Gallery, his
work
> starts as film but is printed digitally.
>
I don't frequent galleries, but I notice in museums that prints aren't
usually signed.
I suppose I could turn my concerns around too. Going back to AA as an
example, you can buy new prints from his negatives online from the gallery,
but his authentic prints are still valuable.
The concept of being able to produce an infinite number of copies of a
photograph without any effort or skill still seems to make it less
collectable to me.
Bob
Don
kelsol...@hotmail.com says...
[snip]
> galleries: do galleries make a distinction between "film" prints and
> "digital" prints?
It all depends if you create art that moves people. No matter what the
medium or technique is.
Don
Adams, Ritts, Avedon, Photoshop+:
http://www.1world-design.com/book/
Bill Hilton
>My question is this: for fine-art photographers who exhibit in
>galleries: do galleries make a distinction between "film" prints and
>"digital" prints?
I live in a scenic part of the country with several fine art photography
galleries nearby. Five years ago state-of-the art was Ilfochrome prints (nee'
Cibachrome), often from Fuji Velvia film, often from 4x5" view cameras.
Today the majority of those same guys ("majority", not all) have switched to
high end drum scans (still using the same films), digital touch-up in
Photoshop, and prints on a LightJet or Chromira digital printer on Fuji Crystal
Archive paper.
Tom Monego
We aren't talking about duping Micheangelo here, we are talking about printing
photos. Prints from inkjet devices are proven to have a longer life than most
color photo prints, so why not accept them. The arguement of being able to
create an infinite number of copies is an issue, as it is with photography.
Both get costly after a while, negatives and files can be destroyed. As for the
skill involved, it still takes a good eye to take a good digital photo, and
skill with Photoshop to bring out the best in a photo. If you use AA as an
example ne would work on a print, get the right exposure, burning, dodging,
make a few prints, then turn the rest over to his interns, with his notes, most
working without pay, he would sign them in the end.
Tom
In article <SiB78.8003$JP7.33...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
ca...@jwprout.com says...
J Greely
>Prints from inkjet devices are proven to have a longer life than most
>color photo prints, so why not accept them.
Because that statement isn't true, perhaps. If you carefully qualify
it with specific models of printer and specific ink/paper
combinations, you can get somewhere, but it is not the typical case.
[this ignores all the issues of whether or not the inkjet print offers
equivalent image quality or not, and the answer is still "not" if you
are comparing to something above the level of a mall one-hour photo
lab printing from Kodak Gold 400]
-j
jw&a
"Tom Monego" <T...@microlightphoto.com> wrote in message
news:a3nb7...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Geesh!
> We aren't talking about duping Micheangelo here, we are talking about
printing
> photos. Prints from inkjet devices are proven to have a longer life than
most
> color photo prints, so why not accept them. The arguement of being able to
> create an infinite number of copies is an issue, as it is with
photography.
> Both get costly after a while, negatives and files can be destroyed. As
for the
> skill involved, it still takes a good eye to take a good digital photo,
and
> skill with Photoshop to bring out the best in a photo. If you use AA as an
The skill I was referring to would be the skill of some uninvolved person at
a later date to find the print command, not the skill required to produce
the art in the first place.
Again, I'm only thinking from the standpoint of a collector, not someone who
might like to see something nice hanging on the wall.
Bob
Dallas
intermediaries don't give a rat's ass about how the frikkin' image got
there, as long as they like what they see. That's why they buy it.
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
jw&a <jw...@usenetserver.com> wrote in message
news:mOA78.70086$Up4.3...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Jan
wrote:
> The *vast* majority of people who buy mounted prints from galleries or other
> intermediaries don't give a rat's ass about how the frikkin' image got
> there, as long as they like what they see. That's why they buy it.
They give a lot more than a rat's ass if they think
the print will start visibly to fade within 5 years.
You'd have to be pretty stupid not to realise that.
--
Best regards,
Jan
J Greely
>They give a lot more than a rat's ass if they think
>the print will start visibly to fade within 5 years.
Don't confuse digital printing with digital cameras (which was a
primary point in the original question). Professional digital printing
has been accepted by the fine-arts community for a while now, starting
with the high-end Iris "giclee" printers (which can be called
"inkjets", but which have little in common with the inkjets you can
buy at CompUSA), and the professional photo printers work by exposing
real photographic paper with lasers, so they have the same archival
properties as an "old-fashioned" photo.
I know there are people out there who sell prints from desktop inkjets
without paying extra for archival inks and papers, and, yes, their
customers will be unhappy a few years down the road. But it's not a
problem with digital, it's a problem with being a cheap bastard.
-j
Dallas
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Jan <j...@tesco.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:uc326ug29nnihs9k9...@4ax.com...
Jan
> Jan <j...@tesco.nospam.net> writes:
> >They give a lot more than a rat's ass if they think
> >the print will start visibly to fade within 5 years.
>
>
> I know there are people out there who sell prints from desktop inkjets
> without paying extra for archival inks and papers, and, yes, their
> customers will be unhappy a few years down the road. But it's not a
> problem with digital, it's a problem with being a cheap bastard.
The problem is that 90% of customers will not only not know this, but
even if they did they would be unable to tell the difference. They will
be attracted by the presentable prints that it is now possible to make
on inkjet printers and not be able to distinguish them from prints made
on something better.
And the point is, will galleries care enough to rule out inkjet prints
in the face of inkjet printer manufacturers' claims of supreme longevity
for their materials and consumables?
--
Best regards,
Jan
J Greely
>And the point is, will galleries care enough to rule out inkjet prints
>in the face of inkjet printer manufacturers' claims of supreme longevity
>for their materials and consumables?
If they want repeat business, they will. Keep in mind that inkjets are
far from the first non-archival art medium. Galleries had to deal with
these issues long before Epson started spraying color around.
-j
Jan
wrote:
> WTF does that have to do with how the image was taken?
Are you really that stupid or are you just acting like you are?
--
Best regards,
Jan
Jan
Agree 100%.
They didn't care about repeat business when they sold acrylics.
The deterioration of some of David Hockney's best work in acrylics
was a national scandal.
--
Best regards,
Jan
Skip
prints generally sell for less than "silver
gelatin." My wife, daughter and I all show, and
occaisonally (rarely) sell images from there,
too. Typically an 8x10 traditional print will
sell in the $200-300 range, a digital between
$75 and $150. It's not so much that it is from
a digital camera, it is partly its perceived
lack of longevity and its ease of duplication.
Once you get the file saved, then you can make
infinite numbers of identical prints.
Skip
--
*********************************************************************
SHADOWCATCHER IMAGERY
Fine Art Black and White Photography
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip and Heather Middleton
*********************************************************************
Dallas
customer be any wiser? Would it make a difference to the way they perceive
the image they just bought?
--
Don't blink!
-
Remove nospam to mail me.
Jan <j...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:58s56u41cok7ap4ud...@4ax.com...
Jan
wrote:
> If the picture was taken digitally and printed traditionally, would the
> customer be any wiser? Would it make a difference to the way they perceive
> the image they just bought?
D'oh.
--
Best regards,
Jan
Lewis Lang
>From: Skip shadow...@home.com
>Date: Thu, Feb 7, 2002 10:46 PM
>Message-id: <3C63030C...@home.com>
>
>Speaking only from direct experience, digital
>prints generally sell for less than "silver
>gelatin." My wife, daughter and I all show, and
>occaisonally (rarely) sell images from there,
>too. Typically an 8x10 traditional print will
>sell in the $200-300 range, a digital between
>$75 and $150.
SNIP
Skip:
Are you talking about $200-300 for an archivally washed fiber-based selenium
toned limited edition silver gelatin print or do any of the above
wash/selenium/limited edition factors matter in the price. Can you get the same
price for RC silver gleatin prints? How much of a factor do the factors I've
mentioned play in the final price of the 8x10" silver gelatin print?
TIA
Regards,
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Skip
just had some prints done on the Frontier system
from his G1. Longevity would be the same as
prints made from film, and there was no overt
manipulating of the image (filters, etc.) before
the image was saved, so it was virtually
indistinguishable from a film based image.
Skip
--
Skip
Gallerie, do all the archival steps, bus skip
the toning. (Lazy) Other photogs I know don't
skip the toning step, others print on variable
contrast RC, and it seems to make no difference
to the purchaser. I've never had one ask about
it, anyway.
Skip
PS Remember that the $200-300 price includes
gallery commission.
--
Lewis Lang
>Subject: Re: Gallery stance on Prints: Film or Digital?
>From: Skip shadow...@home.com
>Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2002 2:16 PM
>Message-id: <3C63DCEC...@home.com>
>
>Virtually none. I usually print on Ilford
>Gallerie, do all the archival steps, bus skip
>the toning. (Lazy)
:-)
Other photogs I know don't
>skip the toning step, others print on variable
>contrast RC, and it seems to make no difference
>to the purchaser. I've never had one ask about
>it, anyway.
>Skip
>PS Remember that the $200-300 price includes
>gallery commission.
So if you sell the print on your own you still charge/get $200-300 for the
8x10? Is this $200-300 for a limited edition print or for unlimited editons?
This is the price for prints alone (no matting, no framing)? What determines
whether the print will sell for $200 vs. $300 (or somewhere inbetween)?
Thanks and TIA...
Scott Ullman
> Are you really that stupid or are you just acting like you are?
Could you please confine your trolling to the off-topic flame theads?
Thanks.
--
Scott Ullman
sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude
(Remove "i_hate_spam" and change "ude" to "edu" to send e-mail.)
Skip
own, but, as a courtesy to the galleries who
show my work, I do tend to price closer to their
retail rather than my cost. $200-300 is just a
range that I've seen locally, mine tend to sell
at the lower edge of that range, because I'm
less well known than some of the others. This
is for limited editions, generally 25 or less,
framed and mounted. My wife's sells for the
higher price, she is a little better known
locally, and her stuff is hand tinted, which
seems to enhance the price. We just picked up a
check from the Photo Factory Gallery in downtown
San Diego, they sold one of hers for $225
mounted, but unframed. Which means the check
was for $112.50 Also, size matters, hers are
11x14s, mine are 8x10.
Another photographer that gallery represents has
his stuff selling for closer to the $500 range,
he has a much more widespread reputation, and,
frankly, sells more. He has done nudes of the
pricipal dancers of the San Diego Ballet and the
John Malashock Dance group. Really cool stuff!
I just wish I could remember his name, right
now...jeez, I'm getting old!
Skip
> So if you sell the print on your own you still charge/get $200-300 for the
> 8x10? Is this $200-300 for a limited edition print or for unlimited editons?
> This is the price for prints alone (no matting, no framing)? What determines
> whether the print will sell for $200 vs. $300 (or somewhere inbetween)?
>
> Thanks and TIA...
>
> Regards,
>
> Lewis
>
> I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
> to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
> Thanks.
>
> Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
>
> http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
--
Mxsmanic
chemical prints here or digital prints?
"Skip" <shadow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C64AFD2...@home.com...
Jan
<sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude> wrote:
> Jan wrote:
>
> > Are you really that stupid or are you just acting like you are?
>
> Could you please confine your trolling to the off-topic flame theads?
I suggest you should take your own advice and save
us all from your head-in-the-sand dense ignorance.
By the way, your video clip was the most appalling
trash, the sort of thing that would only ever be
produced with funding from an academic institution.
Have a nice day.
--
Best regards,
Jan
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <3C64AFD2...@home.com>
Skip:
Thanks for the info... If you are doing what you love then you're not getting
old, just older :-). I have reverse senility - I used to remember less/next to
nothing when I was younger but now my memory is improving more than I'd like it
too... oh well, there's an upside and a down side to everything ;-).
Thanks again,
brian
Tony:
Are you really just a nasty human being, or are you just acting like you are?
Brian
Skip
Skip
Scott Ullman
>> Could you please confine your trolling to the off-topic flame theads?
>
>
> I suggest you should take your own advice and save
> us all from your head-in-the-sand dense ignorance.
>
> By the way, your video clip was the most appalling
> trash, the sort of thing that would only ever be
> produced with funding from an academic institution.
You mean this one? (http://www.stanford.edu/~kwillis/openair/trailer.mov)
The movie was very well received at our premiere. You're just jealous
because you've never been involved with anything like that.
Jan
<sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude> wrote:
>
> You mean this one? (http://www.stanford.edu/~kwillis/openair/trailer.mov)
>
> The movie was very well received at our premiere.
The sight of academics praising each other's mediocre efforts
is one of the most sickening I have ever witnessed.
--
Best regards,
Jan
jw&a
"Scott Ullman" <sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude> wrote in message
news:01HW.B88B11170...@news.earthlink.net...
> Jan wrote:
>
> >> Could you please confine your trolling to the off-topic flame theads?
> >
> >
> > I suggest you should take your own advice and save
> > us all from your head-in-the-sand dense ignorance.
> >
> > By the way, your video clip was the most appalling
> > trash, the sort of thing that would only ever be
> > produced with funding from an academic institution.
>
> You mean this one? (http://www.stanford.edu/~kwillis/openair/trailer.mov)
>
> The movie was very well received at our premiere. You're just jealous
> because you've never been involved with anything like that.
>
> --
> Scott Ullman
Given Jan's rant, I was expecting hard-core porn or graphic violence, not
light animation! I don't see (in concept anyway) how it's any different from
"Toy Story" or "Antz" or "Shrek". Far as I know, none of them was done by an
academic institution.
Bob
Scott Ullman
> Given Jan's rant, I was expecting hard-core porn or graphic violence, not
> light animation! I don't see (in concept anyway) how it's any different from
> "Toy Story" or "Antz" or "Shrek". Far as I know, none of them was done by an
> academic institution.
"Jan" (or "Tony Polson" or "Prof Zonnebloem" or "Erika" as he also goes by)
is a troll who's been posting a lot of nonsense in the off-topic "America
Bashing" flame thread on this newsgroup. I've been smacking him down and
pointing out the stupidity of what he's been saying, so he has a grudge
against me. That's the only reason he said what he did about the video.
Since one of his identities is a "professor," it's funny that he would be
trashing "academics."