Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B.D. With a medium like photography, the original is available for whoever lays their hands on it. So, in a loose sense, everyone gets to play. Weston had it correct, the only way to enforce his vision for his images was to destroy the originals so only his vision existed. Any photographer who has any illusions about what control they have over their images after they have lost control of the originals is sadly dilusional. My problem with the twerp was that his insight was no insight at all, he preferred the original interpretation of the images and developed a construct to support his vision. All well and good and the author is certainly entitled to their viewpoint. The fact remains that a negative or digital file will be re-interpreted by somebody if the image is significant enough. I don't believe that even very closely worded legal documents detailing what could and could not be done with images are worth the paper they are written on. Just look at the private museum in Philly that recieved permission to move in clear violation of the intent of the person who built and funded the collection. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 8/25/06, B. D. Colen <bd@bdcolenphoto.com> wrote: > > Actually, I found this "pretentious twerp" quite insightful, in that he > raises and deals with important issues. Photography is no more the > "people's > medium" than is drawing or painting - every kid draws and paints in > school; > not every kid photographs. For every talented painter or illustrator, > there > are countless thousands of hacks, as is the case with photography. But > that's beside the point. The real questions raised and explored in the > piece > are about what photography is or isn't, and how much the original artist's > vision should be seen as the last word, if you will, on a particular > image. > > > On 8/25/06 10:59 AM, "Don Dory" <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >