Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>In a message dated 12/12/03 10:29:59 AM, phong@doan-ltd.com writes: > ><< Anyway, I think I will give up on this topic on the LUG. >I tried a few times to have a meaningful discussion on >how to photographically portray such things as sex, lust, >temptation, desire, etc. in an artistic way, and failed. >> Kim wrote: >I honestly don't know that the LUG proper is the place to have such >meaningful discussions about photography more than once a blue moon. It >kinda >interrupts the alcohol and why we should all move to digital discussion. Well, Kim, I tried. I expressed a strongly-worded opinion that many (NOT all) post-60s artist's "art" is more about sensationalism and self-promotion than anything else. I backed up my assertion with some examples from art and music history that showed how post-60s art has built on attitudes established in the Romantic era and the post World War I breakdown of many artistic conventions (and Kit correctly identified the Dadaists as the poster children for the leading edge of that wave). I asserted that these attitudes had taken a quantum leap in the post-60s era, in part due to the modern cult of celebrity and marketing methods. I concluded with: >The revolutionaries of the early-mid 20th century knew what they were >rebelling against. I'm not sure many post-1960s artists do. It is one >thing (and, I think a good thing) to say that content dictates form. It is >quite another to say that lack of form dictates content. It is a good >thing to do something new and different. It is quite another to do >something completely incoherent, guided only by libido, ego and >self-indulgence, and claim that anyone who doesn't like it is an ignorant >Phillistine. You in turn quoted my post and responded angrily. You attacked the LUG in general as being reactionary. You implied that I was narrow-minded. Your response sounded as if I'd attacked you and your work personally. Which I had not. Nor had I said that libido was not a valid motivation for art, or that ego and self-indulgence were not present in art of all ages. I simply meant that such things were a few of many starting points for what I regarded as good art, and art that doesn't go beyond those starting points is usually bad art, or not art at all. Forgive me if I didn't state it clearly enough. Let me try again. I believe (as others have stated) that to be good or great art, it has to: 1. Demonstrate mastery of the materials. 2. Perhaps show some transcendence of them. 3. Communicate something, perhaps an idea, perhaps a feeling, perhaps both. 4. Have some universality that speaks beyond the artist's time, place, or immediate social circle. A number of people made intelligent comments in response to my post. But after your angry missive, there seemed little point in continuing. I deliberately refrained from responding. I felt I'd pretty much stated my case, and didn't wish to get into a flamefest. It also sounded like you were responding to something from your own experience, rather that what I or the others had actually said. But now you imply that this incident shows that the LUG is no place for a serious discussion of photography, because we're too busy discussing scotch and whether to switch to digital. Huh? Read your own post. In my opinion, *it* was what squelched the discussion. http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v26/msg03771.html - --Peter - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html