Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- --============_-1261396139==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" LUGnuts - This discussion has been very interesting and has at least gotten some of us thinking. I have ordered a book of Eggleston's photographs from Amazon.com to see if I can figure out why some of the LUGnuts I admire also admire Eggleston. Unfortunately my art history courses were before his time (I'm old!) and I'm not familiar with any of his work except what I've seen on the web. The book is the Hasselblad Award Book so I assume none of the photos are with Leicas :-) Tina tina, i just saw that book last night at the local 'borders' - couldn't even look at it as it was still in its plastic wrap. i thought about opening the wrapper, just to get a look at work by the guy responsible for this long-lived thread, but didn't. i did laugh to myself however: before this debate, i had never seen an image by eggleston, never even heard his name... maybe i'll have to go back and buy that book after all. reading through these posts, the debate seems to divide us into two distinct camps: those for whom 'photography' essentially means photojournalism, and those who are willing to consider an 'art photography,' however that comes to be defined. judging from the strong comments and reactions, it would appear that for some the twain shall never meet. to me, the basic distinction hinges on meaning, whether that be termed 'message,' 'comprehensibility,' 'accessibility,' or whatever. some of us apparently believe that without it, the photograph (poem/work of art) is a failure. others, like myself, seeing meaning bearing photography (poems/works of art) as one type of artistic expression - no better or worse than any other, just distinct. i have spent most of my adult life studying and teaching 'avant-garde' literature and art to college students and 'senior citizens' in continued learning programs, and am used to this type of debate. i habitually try to get my students to accept if not the work itself, then at least the right that such work exist, and that for some people it is considered art, though they themselves may not like nor 'understand' it. sometimes i succeed, sometimes i don't. i'm almost always assured a productive debate. like nathan and many others on this list, i personally have no interest or patience for goldfish in blenders, topless women playing cello at the bottom of swimming pools or the like. but i can honestly say from my own study and experience that, for every one of these works, there exists another more serious, truly thought-provoking and valid work that will leave a mark on our cultural consciousness and shape and define art in the future, be it done with a paintbrush, a camera, or a transistor radio filled with spumoni! guy - --============_-1261396139==_ma============ Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii" LUGnuts - This discussion has been very interesting and has at least gotten some of us thinking. I have ordered a book of Eggleston's photographs from Amazon.com to see if I can figure out why some of the LUGnuts I admire also admire Eggleston. Unfortunately my art history courses were before his time (I'm <underline>old!) </underline>and I'm not familiar with any of his work except what I've seen on the web. The book is the Hasselblad Award Book so I assume none of the photos are with Leicas :-) Tina tina, i just saw that book last night at the local 'borders' - couldn't even look at it as it was still in its plastic wrap. i thought about opening the wrapper, just to get a look at work by the guy responsible for this long-lived thread, but didn't. i did laugh to myself however: before this debate, i had never seen an image by eggleston, never even heard his name... maybe i'll have to go back and buy that book after all. reading through these posts, the debate seems to divide us into two distinct camps: those for whom 'photography' essentially means photojournalism, and those who are willing to consider an 'art photography,' however that comes to be defined. judging from the strong comments and reactions, it would appear that for some the twain shall never meet. to me, the basic distinction hinges on meaning, whether that be termed 'message,' 'comprehensibility,' 'accessibility,' or whatever. some of us apparently believe that without it, the photograph (poem/work of art) is a failure. others, like myself, seeing meaning bearing photography (poems/works of art) as one type of artistic expression - no better or worse than any other, just distinct. i have spent most of my adult life studying and teaching 'avant-garde' literature and art to college students and 'senior citizens' in continued learning programs, and am used to this type of debate. i habitually try to get my students to accept if not the work itself, then at least the right that such work exist, and that for some people it is considered art, though they themselves may not like nor 'understand' it. sometimes i succeed, sometimes i don't. i'm almost always assured a productive debate. like nathan and many others on this list, i personally have no interest or patience for goldfish in blenders, topless women playing cello at the bottom of swimming pools or the like. but i can honestly say from my own study and experience that, for every one of these works, there exists another more serious, truly thought-provoking and valid work that will leave a mark on our cultural consciousness and shape and define art in the future, be it done with a paintbrush, a camera, or a transistor radio filled with spumoni! guy - --============_-1261396139==_ma============--