Re: [Leica] Re: What is fine art photography?

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

>Much of what passes for quality "art" photography these days, stamped with
>the approval of curators and critics who themselves frame their theories as
>"works of art," is like the rest of the art world still trying to come to
>grips with itself and remains in a state of neuroses. What's sad is that
>when someone dares step forward and ask whether the emporer is wearing any
>clothes, they are routinely looked down upon as Philistines because they
>don't understand concepts like "Protean man" and "fuliginous flatness" or
>even "bokeh" for that matter.


many of the professional photographers on this list speak with authority on
their craft, and some demand that that authority be respected, which is
only fair: they speak from experience and deserve to be listened to,
whether or not in the end we agree with them.

should we not also respect the authority of the curators and critics, who
are no less professionals and serious about what they do than are the pros
among us? they are in most instances educated and trained in their craft,
and have experience that we could learn from. why merely dismiss them as
neurotics instead of trying to learn something from their argument, even if
you only reject it afterward?

also, on this list, it is invariably those who find the emperor naked that
are virulent name-callers, not those who disagree with them. i do not
recall anyone being ridiculed on the lug because they didn't understand any
of the concepts you mention, or because they voiced the opinion that this
or that photographer lacked talent, in their opinion. one need only scan
the archives for dozens of examples of the contrary.

guy