[Leica] powerful images

[george.imagist at icloud.com (George Lottermoser)]

certainly markets play a role;
as do
publications;
peer reviews;
critics;
museums;
collectors:
future generations;
et al.
That's why they call it "culture."

Did the Catholic Church and wealthy families in Italy make mistakes in their 
choices of artists?
Were they taken in by the hype of their time?

Was Paris in the twenties and thirties all about hype?

Was New York in the forties and fifties all about hype?

Was the Armory Show just a bunch of hype?

I saw Arbus' first major show in NYC back in the 60s, as an art student.
I did not read the hype previously.
I walked in and realized that the work on the walls had real power; 
and left a deep impression on me;
and how I developed my sense of the documentary.

The history of Art, Music, Literature has and will continue to separate the 
worthwhile from the worthless ? over time ? whether we like it or not.

I feel pretty confident in my ability to discern the difference between 
serious work, important work, derivative work, and hyped pop bullshit; an 
ability which includes critical thinking when reading bullshit from critics 
too; whether pro or con any particular artist and/or cultural movement.

By definition: different strokes for different folks.

a note off the iPad, George

On Jul 12, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> "Place in History" is determined by the marketing machine behind an
> artist, is it not, and always has been as far as photography is
> concerned, as an artistic medium that came of age in the modern era of
> communications? More reason than most to make up your own mind and not
> get taken in with the hype. (-: