RE: [Leica] Sherlock flunks

[Paul Chefurka <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com>]

I didn't make my point sufficiently clear.  The comment that I quoted was
not (except by context) confined to the arena of photography.  It was, as I
understood it, a sweeping generalization about colour's role in perception,
and how according to the author, one man's photography revolutionized our
perception of colour.  While Eggleston may have done that within the narrow
confines of Aht Photography, he certainly wasn't the first visual artist to
explore colour.  Not by a long shot.

And yes, I've got to admit that my education in the world of art photography
is woefully lacking.  PJ's, portraitists and editorial photography are my
meat and potatoes.  I frankly (sorry) don't have much interest in what
passes for art pix.

Paul Chefurka

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Johnston [mailto:michaeljohnston@ameritech.net]
>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 1:39 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: [Leica] Sherlock flunks
>
>
>>>>Now imagine that - color is a fundamental feature of perception!
>Gee, I
>never ever realized that.  I wonder if he was the first person in the
>history of perception to have this breathtaking insight.  No shit,
>Sherlock!<<<
>
>
>You just flunked a quiz in Photo 101, Introductory History of
>Photography.
>
>Do you know ANYTHING about the conditions that existed in serious
>photography when Eggleston came to prominence? "Color" meant amateur
>Kodachromes of peoples' European vacations and Instamatic snapshots.
>Eliot Porter and one or two others were the token "serious" color
>photographers. Color got very little respect. Don't make the mistake of
>perceiving that comment through the prism of the assumptions that
>prevail today.
>
>--Mike
>
>
>