Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:59:18 +0100 Christer Almqvist >> Here are some things I experienced at the opening night of >> photographic exhibition featuring the Leica photos that will appear >>(snipped) > There was hardly a single in-focus negative, except for a few of static >items. > Perhaps this was ART. > >Definitely, I work in an art department, and it WAS art you were viewing!! [snip] >then it simply HAS to be art--what else could it be? >Walt How about: bad photography? (Or, for those who don't believe in using "good" and "bad" to qualify photographs, how about "weak" or "poorly done" or "amateurish" or "totally devoid of interest" or, well, you get the idea.) I believe Walt's post was made in jest, but there is an assumption that is manifested periodically here on the LUG that equates bad photography with art photography, though not all bad photograpy is art and not all art photography is bad. Though most LUG anti-art diatribes have been directed at Eggleston, there are other, less controversial "art photographers" whose work is strong, well done, masterful and thought provoking, in other words, the exact opposite of the above. So before we go down that well tread path yet again, why not equate "art" with those photographers recognized for producing it, folks like Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Ralph Gibson, Michael Kenna, André Kertesz, Alexander Rodchenko, and Edward Weston, to name just a few, rather than immediately attach the label "art" to photographic BS such as that described by Christer? Guy - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html