RE: [Leica] Cartier-Bresson Tete-a-Tete

["Stewart, Alistair" <AStewart@gigaweb.com>]

Jonathan

Nice writing. 

So, we are close. I like your analysis very much. My argument is that He
wasn't first, wasn't  'first' for long, was revered too long for the wrong
reasons, and now the world is just incredibly HCB crazy (witness; first the
HCB commemorative M6 - and He stopped being a photographer way way back
around the CL time; and second all the BS here on the LUG about whatever
50mm lens He used)

I get a little upset when I see all the classic stuff overpriced (HCB =
Vincent vG minus the pain), and no homage paid to unrecognised masters of
the medium, who advance it, and sure could use the money. now.


best of mlight

Alistair



- -----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 10:58 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] Cartier-Bresson Tete-a-Tete


Alistair

>
> So, my point is that several LUGers, let alone countless other
> contemporary
> silver halide artists, have work that stands, on any evaluation, head and
> shoulders above His, and elevates the medium far more than Mr. Artless Art
> ever did. But the dealers don't stand to get rich off their work since the
> market is as yet unmade. The new work isn't 'promoted' and the medium gets
> mired in the old cliches. Es claro?
>
 You are entitled to this opinion. IMHO it is difficult to measure 'art' by
objective criteria. The classic cliche is the white canvas with the red dot
in MOMA and replicated in countless other museums etc etc. By my definition,
the first time this was done, it made a statement and was by this measure
modern art. On the other hand the tenth time this was done it is just
drivel. The idea is that being the first, or among the first to do something
weighs quite strongly in many circles, often more stongly than other
criteria such as technical proficiency. HCB might not be your taste but he
is widely considered to be a pioneer in his field and this weighs strongly.
Merely taking  'better' (whatever that means) street photos using todays
cameras, films, lenses etc doesn't cut it, in the same fashion that yet
another impressionist water lily might not cut it.

One thing that is wonderful about the web is that we are no longer dependent
on a small group of publishers, art dealers etc, to get art published.
Virtually anyone can create a web site and offer whatever images of whatever
quality for viewing.

For example, I first was able to view Ted Grant's work via a link on this
group to his sight and subsequently have obtained his book (x3 I might
add!). I don't own a book of HCB photos, nor do I have a print on my wall,
though I did thoroughly enjoy the Washington Post show. Images such as Sarte
on the bridge among, I did enjoy viewing. I get the sense that this is the
original, and that photos done by others are the cliches.

regards