Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] E******* WAS sherman
From: Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:40:51 -0500

on 13/12/00 10:42 am, Nathan Wajsman at belgiangator@yahoo.com wrote:

> The format used by Sherman and Eggleston makes no
> difference whatsoever to me. In fact, I do not even
> know or care what equipment they use. I simply find
> their work (at least what I have seen of it) devoid of
> any artistic or technical merit. In other words, I
> have no idea what they are trying to say, and I find
> their pictures poorly executed from a technique point
> of view. This is in contrast to what I feel about
> Mapplethorpe: while I am sometimes repulsed by some of
> the content, I greatly admire the technical quality of
> his pictures. I have seen them in several exhibitions,
> and the richness of the prints is astounding.

Fair enough, but that surprises me about the technique thing. Have you ever
seen Sherman or Eggleston's prints? Both of them are technically quite
astounding. Eggleston's in particular because of his use of the dye transfer
technique. Quite likely to fry your eyeballs.
- -- 
Johnny Deadman

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

Replies: Reply from Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch> (Re: [Leica] E******* WAS sherman)
Reply from S Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] E******* WAS sherman)