RE: [Leica] RE: is it art yet?

["Lee, Ken" <ken.lee@hbc.com>]

ROFL


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Brick [SMTP:jimbrick@photoaccess.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, February 16, 2000 12:33 PM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us;
> 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> Subject:	[Leica] RE:  is it art yet?
> 
> At 11:07 AM 2/16/00 -0500, Lee, Ken wrote:
> >
> >I guess I am a dull person with a literal view of things. I like A.A.,
> John
> >Sexton etc for landscapes. I own more of Karsh's books than those of any
> >other photographer. I keep looking at Ted's book with amazement. My
> favorite
> >painter is Robert Bateman. I think I see a pattern here......
> >
> >Ken
> >
> 
> Funny... same pattern everyone else I know has.
> 
> True story, I was there:
> 
> I grew up in Santa Cruz CA. My dad owned a cabinet mill. A local merchant
> (Miller McDaniel), owned the local Hi-Fi shop and was a weekend artist.
> Modern art. This was in the 50's. He was quite successful in selling his
> modern art through galleries in the area.
> 
> Miller always brought his paintings to my dad for framing. My dad had a
> "sticker" which allowed him to make any kind of special moulding, out of
> any kind of wood, which also works as framing material.
> 
> The framing was never exactly symmetrical, the bottom piece was usually
> different as it contained a little metal plaque with Miller's name on it.
> Miller would always mark, on the back of the "art" which side was the top.
> Remember... this was "modern art."
> 
> Miller left a bunch of paintings to be framed and when my dad got to one,
> Miller had forgotten to mark which side was the top. My dad called Miller
> and asked how to identify the top. Miller said "which one is it?" and my
> dad said, "the one with the paint drools and blotches all over it" and
> Miller replied "Hell, Bud (my dad's name), it really doesn't make any
> difference on most of these things anyway, so however you frame it will be
> OK.
> 
> We always suspected that Miller had a pet monkey doing his paintings for
> him. He denied it, of course.
> 
> Jim