Re: [Leica] In/admissable

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

donal,

many writers and artists are reviled in their own time, only to be
recognized later for the 'greats' they were. whether you're talking about
blake and beethoven in the 18th century or joyce and schoenberg in the
20th, the list is long and illustrious. ironically, many of them would be
classed among the 'intellectuals' you insult, though the qualities you seem
to despise haven't bothered the rest of the world, who celebrates them as
geniuses.

interestingly, arguments very similar to those in your post were used to
promote 'socialist realism' in the soviet union under stalin, where
'intellectual' artists were either persecuted or silenced, because their
work was judged to be 'formalist' and incomprehensible to the masses as it
did not overtly promote social concerns. such was also the fate of
so-called 'degenerate' artists in nazi germany and 'counter-revolutionary'
artists in china, for much the same reasons.

if you ever have the opportunity to study soviet, nazi, or maoist art, you
may come to the conclusion, as many have, that the accessible depiction of
'common truths that cross time and culture,' as you put it, does not
necessarily result in good art, nor do formal or intellectual qualities
necessarily result in bad. they are just two different approaches to a
single problem: human expression. and even if you still don't accept that
an art that does not seek to respond to social realities can still be
genuine and move millions - even if that excludes you - perhaps you will at
least be a less dogmatic about it.

guy


>Some years ago I read a book on writing popular fiction by blockbuster
>novelist Dean Koonz.  In it he defended popular fiction versus the "art"
>fiction.  Frederick Forsythe versus say John Barth or Thomas Pynchon.
>
>He mentions one writer in the 1800s who was excoriated by the critics.
>They called him common, simple, uncreative, without literary style.  On
>the other hand, there were other writers, part of the intelligencia and
>academia, that they praised to heaven for artistry and depth and style,
>even though few people read the novels.
>
>Of course, no one today except a few scholars know the names of the
>critically aclaimed authors, but the one that published cheap stories in
>the popular press about real issues of personal and social concerns is
>still celebrated today.
>
>Charles Dickens.
>
>I think all the art for art critics is fine.  It will eventually drop
>into the wastebin of time when there is no one left to have intellectual
>appreciation.  But the art which springs from the depth of human
>experience, which touches universal pain, joy, hope, dispair, love,
>ambition, peace and more will live and move new generations precisely
>because it expresses those common truths that cross time and culture.
>
>Certainly Leicas (to stay on topic) have been used to make more of such
>photos than any other.
>
>donal
>__________
>Donal Philby
>San Diego
>www.donalphilby.com