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

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

>> From: Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: What is fine art photography?
>
>> 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.
>
>Made no such assertion in any respect about the LUG, Guy. If you go back and
>reread what I wrote, it had to do with my art school experience and a
>certain prof who assailed me for reading "The Painted Word." Nevertheless,
>yes, I do find the art world in a state of neuroses. When a piece of art
>requires an *explanation* for a viewer to *get it* it's usually toast for
>me. No amount of explanation will make either of Minor Threat or Arvo Part
>resonate with me. It's something I feel in my head, in my gut, and yes, in
>my soul.


you're right, dave, i misread your post; my apologies. your "philistine"
comment was not directed at the lug as i had surmised. given the frequent
nastiness of the "art photography" threads, i guess i've become defensive.

i do disagree with your comment that some art needs explaining. art does
not require an explanation, the viewer occasionally does. and if that's the
case, then the viewer can just move on, as you do, or try to come to grips
with the challenge of the artwork, whether that means reading a book,
taking a course or simply discussing it with some people who do "get it"
(whatever that means). i don't believe that it's always worth the effort,
but i do believe that you'll never know whether it is or not if you don't
try.

guy