Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Appreciation of any art form takes exposure and understanding. When Impressionism first appeared it was treated very much as many treat modern art. Now Impressionism is accepted and we are exposed to it everywhere and our eye has learned to appreciate this fuzzy representation of the world. When any art form is thrust upon us unexpectedly and finds us unprepared (i.e. no earlier exposure), our initial reaction is negative. We have been trained to reject the strange and the unknown for our own safety and this attitude migrates into the art world as well. I would recommend a university extension course in art history to anyone. You may still not like certain directions that art has gone in but you will understand the whys a little more. John Collier Photography also was scorned for decades after its discovery. After all a child could do that! > From: "Lee, Ken" <ken.lee@hbc.com> > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:57:23 -0500 > Subject: RE: [Leica] Eggleston: art photography > > John, > > Please forgive me if this sounds argumentative, I don't mean it that way. I > often wonder about art, because whether painting, sculpture or photography > most of the time I don't get it. I had never heard of Eggleston before this > thread, so I checked out the site from the URL. What makes any of these > photos anything more than very poor snapshots other than a great PR person? > What makes a figure of a woman clothed in rotting meat art? What makes most > modern paintings art? For some of the more well know artists, I sort of > accept that it must be art, and something must be wrong with me because I > just don't get it. For the rest I just scratch my head. > > A very confused Ken > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Collier [SMTP:jbcollier@home.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 1:37 PM >> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Eggleston: art photography >> >> Why indeed. It is a very good question that is difficult to answer. Your >> work that you have shown us is very socially driven with strong >> emotionally >> charged meanings. You cloak your subjects, even though you are trying to >> illustrate their potential need, with dignity and humanity. I connect to >> the >> message because I think you are picturing me, my son , my daughter, or my >> life I guess. This type of work is at polar opposites to the work that you >> are having trouble seeing value in. It reminds me of the "relief" or >> "field" >> * style of painting that so enrages the public when museums purchase these >> historically important pieces for millions of dollars. A framed field of >> blue is not that difficult to bang off in a lazy afternoon with lots of >> time >> to spare for catching the early show as well. That, however, is not how >> they >> were made. They were made to make statements that can only be interpreted >> though the filter of that time (which of course is also why it lasted only >> a >> short time) and created a sensation when they first came out. I look >> forward >> to the time, probably not soon, when your work will be looked at with >> puzzled expressions as poverty will be unknown and incomprehensible. One >> can >> hope. Why not go to your local library and take out a few books on art >> history and the history of photography, it is very interesting and helps >> one >> to at least understand photographers like Eggleston if not appreciate >> them. >> >> John Collier >> >> *Please note I am not an art historian and my have some of my terms mixed >> up. >> >>