While this appears to read as a "correction," I don't see where anything is actually corrected--though it does provide some clarification. I did not inaccurately claim any intentions, I didn't assume who had approached whom for the license, and I think that "beautiful photographs" was more than covered by my characterization of the exhibit as a "stunning visual record."
Sign up for Daily Rundown and get the freshest content sent right to your inbox.
Pittsburgh City Paper
Website powered by Foundation
National Advertising by VMG Advertising