Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/05/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>I am not missing any points, Ted!< Oddmund, I found your writing and your point of view astute and caring, especially for a list so 'made of money'. I think that the misunderstanding arose when Ted (and Roger) mistook your words as some sort of personal insult. Why not consider intent before reaction? Remembering that the world is not revolving around our personal selves isn't ever insulting, even to the most self involved of all (_not a dig T/R). I don't think you were preaching to the guilty. You were mulling a muse and expounding on what drives your interpretation of art as a 'motivation'(or convincing method of change). Intelligently proposed idealism is not easy to understand, or simple to render as flowing conversation; not that it should be. In your own words: "sometimes they are too controversial for their time. We will have to wait for them." (which I find extremely well said; even lyrical) Don't let the personal insults distract you. Your words were taken by me at least, as a reminder to practice some introspect while I read of Booku's and Hektor (the dog, I mean). I enjoy your perspective and find it far more _hopeful than depressing and/or guilt provoking. "If you are honest and straight, it is almost an impossible mission." Maybe some will remember the context in which you wrote the above. Though you're sentiment is probably correct, I doubt that you believe it. Maybe in a strict sense of 'legalism' (by the rules), but art doesn't adhere to that ethical standard. I believe art is a product of antinomian impulse/thought (no maxims whatsoever). Money and art won't ever make comfortable bedfellows, because you really can't buy love; you can only hope to experience it. I'll bet money that it is the ethos art symbolizes that has lead to a backlashed 'by the rulebook' interpretation of your posts. >>Life is a complex story and it is difficult to know exactly why and how >>it becomes your life. There are no rules.<< No maxims. How anarchaic <s>. One thing I do disagree with you about though. This idea that the significance of an image is the product of a judgment. You wrote: >>Sometimes an image makes us happy, or makes us shed a tear. Sometimes an image provokes anger. In a fraction of a second you understand the whole comedy, you see the lies and you are revolted. Many places in the world this question is not an item. The image doesn't have the same significance, or it isn't present.<< >>Photography is for sure communication for the masses, but if it doesn't serve the masses, or change anything, it is devoid of meaning.<< I don't see the moral imperitive in creating art and I don't see the 'sterility syndrome' in the better art; it's in the context of its presentation and a 'designers' use of said imagery for intended effect. Ralph Gibson's work is, for instance, used as sterile wallpaper, yet there is plenty for me to glean from the work. Salgado is another, Vallonrhat another. I believe that personal response to any image is significant in that it is the spark of wanting to learn, at least, how/why (in a minor political and photographic sense). While one person is just one more of billions, that persons interest is interesting, at the very least, to that person. Who needs a chorus to see balance and meaning? Like death, it's something you always experience alone. How wrong could I be? Danny Gonzalez