RE: [Leica] is it art yet?

["Lee, Ken" <ken.lee@hbc.com>]

I think part of my problem is that the grumpy old man part of me has a
problem with the idea that something is art because a group of people
(critics, dealers or ??) who appear to make their living from art say
something is art. The implication being that something is wrong with me
because I don't get it. The Eggleston pictures I saw look like very poor
dull snapshots with telephone poles growing from peoples heads and dull
people doing nothing to me. I don't think looking at more of them will
change that, but I continue looking.  
I guess I am a dull person with a literal view of things. I like A.A., John
Sexton etc for landscapes. I own more of Karsh's books than those of any
other photographer. I keep looking at Ted's book with amazement. My favorite
painter is Robert Bateman. I think I see a pattern here......

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Guy Bennett [SMTP:guybnt@idt.net]
> Sent:	Tuesday, February 15, 2000 6:29 PM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject:	[Leica] is it art yet?
> 
> >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
> 
> 
> ken,
> 
> hit the books!
> 
> guy