Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]One of the oldest conventions of net-speak of which I am aware (and I first logged on from the University of Illinois in 1973) is that typos, spelling, and punctuation were off-bounds for public censure, but In fairness to Leibovitz, I stand corrected. I should have proof-read the message. I've never looked at a single of her photographs over the years (though I've never particularly sought them out) that didn't strike me as facile and synthetically droll--rather like the "brat-pack" fiction that emerged from New York during the Reagan era, the trendy authors of which she documented for glossy gossip rags. I admire the technical competence of the work, but that's it. Henry Adams noted in his great history of the early republic one of its most extraordinary transformations (paraphrasing here, but I'll supply a page reference if you wish): "In 1776, Americans debated the rights of men. In 1800, they haggled over the price of cotton." I should say that the line from Arbus to Leibovitz says as much about our own time as Adams' apercu does of the period he seeks to describe. I'd say more, but I'm busy filling the tub with oatmeal so that I can burn a few rolls on a portrait subject this afternoon. The weather's made the mudbath stuff easy over the past few days, but it's tough to get anything *new* given all the TV coverage of the flood victims. I've been thinking about doing a series on my colleagues, hanging upside down from monkey bars, but they haven't been very cooperative so far. I guess that ever since the lime-jello debacle, my reputation's been in trouble. I *thought* the stuff would wash out a lot easier than it does. Boy, am I glad I only do this stuff as a *hobby.* I'm not sure that one's status as a "professional" ought mean much to anyone except the IRS. Certainly in and of itself it earns no respect from me. Cheers, Chandos At 03:52 PM 9/30/1999 +0000, you wrote: >It's Leibovitz. If you're going to trash the woman's work, at least get >her name right. You might try looking at some of her early work, and >perhaps add an addendum to your post saying that *some* of her work is >"vacuous sterility." I'm not a huge fan of her newer work either, but I >think she's earned the respect as a professional to be referenced correctly. > >-Paul Klingaman Chandos Michael Brown Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies College of William and Mary http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown