Re: [Leica] sontag, etc.

[Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

r.e. Guy's comments.....I used to think, in high school, that I had all 
the answers.....hated Bach and "art", lived for hell raisin' and 
rock and roll (actually blues, cuz I'm in the blues capitol of the 
world---and it ain't Chicago).
Six or seven years of "formal education" and "serious liberal arts 
studies--emphasis on the liberal"---plus many more years working 
in the field of visual arts....with many learned "professionals"...
made me rethink my high school position....as Guy predicts, of course.

I'm glad I had the training and sensitivity to give years of serious 
thought to the matter.  Now I'm SURE I was right in high school.

Best to all, 
WAlt

On
Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Guy Bennett wrote:

> >[snip]
> >
> >There does seem to be an anti-intellectual trend to the LUG at times, I
> >wonder why? Not that I count myself as an intellectual or artist, whatever.
> >Actually, I find Diane Arbus' comment more self-consciously oracular than
> >Sontag's.
> >Rob.
> >Robert Appleby
> 
> 
> i think you hit the nail on the head, robert: there is indeed an
> anti-intellectual trend here on the lug. it's evident in the strong
> resistance to serious discussion about theories of photography, art
> photography, art in general, etc. every time one of these subjects come up,
> a chorus of voices chime in about how worthless it is, how the public has
> been duped by it, and how foolish are those who might actually find some
> value in it. i personally find this unfortunate because there is much to be
> learned (both about the issue at hand as well as about each other) in the
> exchange of ideas generated by such discussions.
> 
> imo, the idea of dismissing someone like susan sontag (or roland barthes,
> or nobuyoshi araki) with no more than a comment like 'he/she don't know
> shit about photography' or 'his/her book/work made me want to puke' is
> sophomoric and self-deprecating, and says more about the one making the
> comment than the one who is commented on (about whom it actually says
> nothing). it reminds me of the high school students who think shakespeare
> (or bach, or mondrian) sucks because they personally don't get anything out
> of it. they're right, the rest of the world is wrong, and that's that.
> 
> guy
>