Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Don , was "Cistine Chapel" some kind of Freudian slip regarding the worth of the comments by the reviewer? (half-way to cistern) My .02 with spell check Hoppy -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Don Dory Sent: Saturday, 26 August 2006 00:59 To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Walker Evans--digital reproductions Lee, The reviewer is a pretentious twerp IMHO. In the first paragraphs he admits that Walker Evans wasn't especially interested in the printing of the images. So, if a later person comes along and finds another story in the images then so what? (Assuming the pedigree of the images is clearly stated) What I got out of the reviewer was angst that the actual image could be gorgeous even though the content frequently was depressing. The truth of photography is that it is the peoples medium and the folks do what they will with the images. As a photographer, the only way to control your images is to destroy the originals when you are done with them. Otherwise, someone else may come along and re interpret what you did or didn't do. If you have a problem with loss of control then take up painting, but even there someone may come along a few hundred years later and "restore" the painting ala the Cistine Chapel. 0.02 Don don.dory@gmail.com On 8/25/06, Lee England <Engl6914@cableone.net> wrote: > > An interesting article I ran into in this morning's New York Times on an > exhibit of digital reproductions of Walker Evan's prints and the problems > associated with their interpretation. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/arts/design/25evan.html > > Lee England > Natchez, Mississippi >