Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
the good doctor noted a propos of Eggleston:
> What follows is a general comment, as I know nothing of the work of the
> photographer in question....
>
> ....Calling something inaccessible does NOT say something about the viewer -
> it says the artist has failed if his or her mission was to make a public
> statement. If the work was meant only for the edification of the artist and
> three of his/her best friends, it belongs in a private home, not a public
> venue.
>
> This thread reminds me of a beloved high school English teacher who once
> made the statement that if a poem's meaning is "hidden," the poem is a
> failure. Same thing goes for "inaccessible" works of visual art.
> "Inaccessible" is, in this case, a synonym for "crap."
Well, this is really tough, isn't it? I mean, emotionally I am with you, but
are we to say that strong malt whisky is crap because it's inaccessible to
people who haven't developed the taste for it?
Personally, I find the work of Winogrand and Eggleston and Frank's later
stuff very moving and thrilling, but there are lots of people who would rate
it inaccessible. Inaccessible does not mean bad... nor does it mean good. To
me the level and quality of emotional and technical engagement with both the
subject and the medium are what count. These are overdetermined equations,
and hence insoluble.
- --
John Brownlow
photos: http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
music: http://www.jukebox.demon.co.uk