Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Yes, but what I am referring to is her writing style, not her real or >imagined importance. imo, her style is fairly typical for the genre (critical theory), and is no more pompous than that of the hordes of academic critics working in the same field. where she differs from the pack, i'd say, is in the originality of her insights and in her provocative rhetorical stance; she forces you to take a position (as opposed to most who are content to merely 'prove' that they are right - after all, they've got to teach the unenlightened dullards). for me, this makes her a little more interesting and thought provoking. not unlike barthes, for example. my proverbial .02. guy >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Guy Bennett >> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:28 PM >> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: meaningless photography and... >> >> >> >Don't want to know! ;-) But then it's no secret that I consider Sontag >> >extremely bright and also extremely insightful - and also >> incredibly pompus >> >and self-important...:-) >> >' >> >B. D. >> >> >> in addition to herself, she seems to be important to a great deal of the >> rest of the world. >> >> guy >>