Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted intoned: "What I've found somewhat interesting to a small degree, is the analytical aspect of what people read into what they think her method, thoughts, why's, wherefore's etc on her work and style, without one word of her engaged in the conversation." Gosh, a couple of us just took a photographer of the past who did good, important work, and tried to learn from her example. You don't get at that by just looking at the work and saying, "gee, nice pictures." You have to learn about her times, attitudes, career, influences, etc, like Gibson did. Think about it, conjecture about it. Because, "unless you engage the photographer in "live conversation." Obviously in this case not possible, unless one is a clarvoyant!" Yep! And, maybe she couldn't explain her craft, anyway. That doesn't mean there is nothing to explain or study, in her work or in yours. "Damn those guys don't have a clue about what I was doing and why the hell aren't they making better use of their time shooting wonderful photographs with their talent?" Because, Dorothea, we modern kids have been swamped with pictures since birth, and seen a potentially noble medium treated like a cheap whore. You did important stuff with your camera - you're one of the good ones. Help us sort it all out by your example. We'll shoot - we're shooting. And thanks for the "talent" props. We just respect photography and want to do well by it. Like you did. Besides, we do have a clue. Don't try to fool us with that "ah, shucks" stuff, Dot, we're wise to ya. Love, Carl - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html