Clear PictureTo the Editor,
I want to thank you for publishing Margaret Regan's "Photo Finish" (October 26). As someone who spent seven years in various capacities at the Center for Creative Photography from 1979-1986 and who continues to admire and support the institution, I was alarmed to read Regan's article.
I had heard a little bit about some administrative problems caused by the head of the University of Arizona library, but I had no idea that the situation was as bad as it appears from the article. Of course the Center should continue to operate as both a museum exhibiting contemporary and historical work and an archive preserving our history and actively supporting and publishing research from its riches.
I have alerted some members of the international photographic community to your enlightening exposé. I believe there will soon be a flood of support for the Center's staff, who, it appears, have been intimidated from allowing those outside of the University of Arizona to know what is really happening there.
You have done an excellent and noble job as journalists to bring this story before the public. Thank you for the fine work.
Independent curator and photo historian
Title TaleTo the Editor,
The cover on the October 26 issue of the Weekly featuring a story about the Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona was very misleading.
"Photo Manipulation--Darkroom Dealings Menace the Center for Creative Photography" suggest a very different story than the one written regarding the administrative and philosophical differences being worked out with the CCP and library administrations and staff.
Your cover suggesting photo manipulation is an affront to the Center, whose staff is charged with preserving and protecting tens of thousands of pieces of photographic works of art. I only hope that your readers read the story and not just digest the headlines on the cover. While I understand the need for a "catchy" cover, I object to misconstruing the inside story just to grab attention.
Associate to the Vice President, University Advancement
Misleading RoleTo the Editor,
The Weekly's film critic James DiGiovanna often misses the mark in his reviews.
In his recent article about Dr. T and the Women ("Viagra Years," October 19) he fails to acknowledge there is much more to the film than the obvious sexist overtones. He also refers to Richard Gere as a "pussy hound," which I find to be more disturbing than any reference in Altman's film.
In Dr. T, Altman depicts a character struggling with his role as a male in our society through Gere playing a gynecologist (which Altman dealt with with great sensitivity). In no way did I see this as being "irredeemably sexist." Altman also addresses the issue of the Southern woman being oppressed by her culture.
As for the shot of male genitalia, DiGiovanna takes it way out of context, and fails to see it as perhaps the rebirth of Gere's character's role as a man. DiGiovanna revels in mentioning Altman's unsuccessful films and ignores his greats, including The Player and Cookie's Fortune.
Dividing LineTo the Editor,
Agreed, that median beggars should no longer be (Mailbag, October 19)! One form of relief continues to entail the economic drain and endless red tape of government social service bureaucracies. Another, religiously oriented program centers--Salvation Army, etc.--can be very tedious and, actually, spiritually oppressive. Efforts must be fortified, focused with ever more precision to empower the homeless to empower themselves.
A point of view has been set forth (Skinny, October 12) that so-called "mainstream society" simply wants the homeless out of sight, out of mind. Can't blame them! I noticed the exact same cardboard sign rotated among a group of "homeless" in various downtown locations during all of June. In July, a refinement was made. It apparently proved to be a superior self-marketing tool, bringing in more donations, and was continued into August.
Mayor Walkup surely realizes the trickle-down possibilities. He does need to broker deals--read, subsidies--with companies to pay a living wage to put the "homeless" to work. Perhaps as festive sign carriers, especially downtown with the advent of Rio Nuevo. But much more so with big businesses, which should be rewarded only to the extent that they aggressively seek out, hire, train and retain "at-risk" citizens. It's a matter of globally thinking economics, and Walkup and other proponents of the growth industry should know that.