Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]nathan, i was not referring to you; i know you're not a flamethrower when it comes to art photography (though, as you point out, you're the guy who started the infamous e******** thread! :) ). my post was a comment on the more reactionary and esthetically conservative luggers' from-the-gut hatred for any kind of photography that doesn't represent their personal vision of what they know photography is all about, and their ususal condescension toward others who may actually find vaule in work by photographers like eggleston and sherman, and we have already had a couple of posts related to the current thread that amply illustrate this point of view. for me, the whole thing (whether c.s. is an artist or a photographer, whether w.e. can take a photo to save his life,etc.) is a moot point, since "art photography" has long been recognized as a viable (and to some, profitable) form of photography, in spite of what a few experts here on the lug may think. i just can't help responding to some of the more presumptuous posts against art photography, which are all ultimately saying this: "i don't like it, so it has no value." some of the more pretentious add: "and anyone who disagrees is an idiot." i know you are not among the latter group, and hope i didn't give that impression; i don't recall ever seeing such comments in your posts. while you may fear "making an idiot of yourself in public," others, alas, do not. guy p.s. as an addendum to the list you originally posted, i understand that michael kenna is the best selling art photographer in the u.s., so there may still be hope for the "brainwashed masses." (i personally believe that m.k. is a great photographer and a fantastic printer.) p.p.s. j loengard (sp?), the last editor of life magazine and a fine photographer, objected to the term "art photographer" - "they don't call doestoevsky an art writer," was his comment. >Guy, > >Please note that even though I am the one who started this Cindy Sherman >thread >and in the past a similar Eggleston (sp) thread, I have NEVER flamed >anyone for >saying that they like these people. Come to think of it, I do not recall ever >flaming anyone on this list. I know too many LUGgers personally to make an >idiot >of myself in public. > >Nathan