Letters, Etc.: Baffled and Dismayed

Dear Editors:

Thank you for the two copies of TDR Spring 2001 in which my photographs of ZONE appear. I am pleased with the layout and reproduction of the images in the text and appreciate the proper photo credits.

In the 30-odd years I have been in the publishing world, I find your decision to use the image of the improvised greenroom in India over the image on page 33 of Rachel to be one of the most myopic, incomprehensible, substandard, taste-defying, poorly designed and executed editorial choices I have experienced in my career. Viewing its cluttered irrelevance gives new meaning to the notion of anti-art and visual insensitivity. I have respected and enjoyed your publication for many years--but remain baffled and dismayed.

--Jan Deen
Phototheatre Archives

Dear Baffled and Dismayed,

In my 39 years of editing (!), I have always taken special delight in disgruntled readers--especially those who complain that I have overlooked their work. Your rejection of the Indian Goddess in favor of your own photo of Rachel is priceless. But watch out that the Goddess doesn't drain something not nice on you. In the meanwhile, please don't give up on TDR. I promise: More bafflement and dismay are surely in your and our future.

--Richard Schechner

Dear Mr. Deen,

As the designer of most of TDR's covers for 15-plus years, I was tickled to read your impassioned response to my choice for T169. But I can assure you that the clutter of the Goddess's preparation is anything but irrelevant. And thank you--I am so pleased to have given "new meaning to the notion of anti-art."

--Mariellen Sandford

...