Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/09/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
On 29 Sep 97, Eric Welch wrote:
> At 08:46 AM 9/29/97 -0700, you wrote:
> >be good. Sooner or later Mapplethorpe and the useless NEA is going to
> >rear its ugly head and voila!
>
> The useless NEA? Puhleeze. Let's talk about useless anything in
> government and find out how much money is wasted - a lot more than
> spent on the NEA - for minuscule things that have no positive impact
> on our communities.
Gotta start somewhere, Eric. Because their spending is, in your eyes,
less offensive than other government agencies, is not reason to curtail
their largess? Sorry, but "Piss Christ" and a great deal of the rest of
his works are trash, pure and simple. And before you go accusing me of
being attached to the religious right, consider that I am agnostic. If
art, let alone, fine art, can't be defined any better, damned if I want
the tax coffers to be shelling out to his definition of art. Art must
survive on its own or perish. The fact that most of the European
countries subsidize their "art" doesn't make it right and just.
> Discussion isn't always for gaining consensus. Many of us would never
> reach that point on what is better, an M6 or an old beat up, out of
> date, hard to load and rewind, overpriced M3. ;-)
Correct, but those unconsensusable [sic] discussions are ON TOPIC!
> But we can come to appreciate what it is that makes using our cameras
> so valuable to us, and to those around us. Fine art isn't something
> one can define without some philosophical underpinnings. Too much for
> this list, so you are partly right. But letting it go at a loose
> definition can be useful for then asking the question of whether it
> can be done with Leicas. As far as I'm concerned, there are many
> practitioners of fine art with Leicas, and lots less expressive
> cameras.
I'm completely right. This list is more prone to off topic wandering
than any other with which I've been associated. And, don't tell me it's
because the subscribers here are deeper thinking and more sensitive
photographers than elsewhere. Less discliplined, that's all. This
list is already "loose as a goose". I'd like to see it keep from
becoming any more so. Andrew Davidhazy's Photoforum is a list that
solicits such dialog. Use it!
> My definition of a fine art photographer(loose version): those who
> have mastered photography to the point that their photographs not only
> expresses what they intend, but does it in a visually compelling way.
So Mapplethorpe qualifies, eh?
You bit big time, Eric. Exactly as I said it would happen, and I'm a
part of it. I'll not be in the future, however, as I'll not respond to
any more of this on the list. Sure isn't what a dedicated list is all
about in my eyes, however. With so many homes for this kind of dialog
available, and I have to go culling through a "dedicated list" because
so many here want to do everything on one list. Oy Veh!
- --
Roger Beamon
Naturalist & Photographer
Leica Historical Society Of America
mailto:beamon@primenet.com
The greatest of all gifts is the power
to estimate things at their true worth.
-- La Rochefoucauld