Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]A little OT explanation. I feel a little uncomfortable in just writing these emails, and not posting any pictures, but I have to rely on my friends' resources as it's not likely I am to acquire a scanner in due time. And their scanners are busy with preparations for Xmas. I may have stated this already, but I am doing this again because I feel as uncomfortable about this as before - and am trying to solve this. Martin >Guy - you are right - Thanks. >but the _missing link_ are the supposedly _arty_ photos themselves. So it is >both difficult - and useless - to discuss some person's work that's not seen >by anybody! Of course, you are right here, only I wasn't talking about his work, but about critical writings on photography in general, which was the subject of the post I was responding to. (See below.) [snip] >And in the meantime sooooo much crap is being presented >as art today My feeling is that it was probably never any different, with respect to any of the arts. We have the luxury of time - we only see the work that has endured. All of the "chaff" produced at the same time has faded into obscurity. - - just because we know we have to be tolerant towards the so >called _self expression_ I don't believe this is the case either. Weak work is weak work, however "expressive" it may be. >Martin Guy >>>Speaking about your work is very important in the art world. >> >>It's a disease. They take very literally the old adage that a picture is >>worth a thousand >>words. Usually the artistic merit is inversely proportional to the amount >>of words used >>to describe it. Try reading modern art criticism. I gave up after I >>misplaced my secret >>decoder ring. >>Robert > >>Robert, you said it better than I ever could have....the "criticism" you >>describe >>is more university-sponsored pseudo-intellectual PC speak....Jeezus, I >never >>took Orwell literally 'til the 90s....... >>Best to U and URS, >>Walt > > >Are you guys saying that there should not be any critical discourse about >photography or art, or just not the complicated kind? > >Should we just stick to: "I like it." "Boy that's neat." "I don't >understand it." "That's crap." etc.? > >Or should we just not talk about it at all? > >While there is a lot of uninspired and overly academic art/photography >criticism out there, there are also well written, thought provoking studies >of art and photography that we can learn a lot from, if we're willing to >make the effort to actually read and understand them, and maybe even >discuss them with other people. > >You guys seem to have a "point and shoot" attitude with respect to talking >about art/photography: the less we have to think and say about it the >better. Anything requiring study and thought is too intellectual, academic, >unnecessarily complex, etc. > >Believe me, I am no fan of conventional academic prose styles, having >slogged through years of it in college. As a photographer, however, I'm >interested in reading what others - both photographers and critics - have >to say about this activity. If nothing else, it only broadens my >appreciation and understanding of photography and gives me something to >think about, even if I disagree with it. To limit myself to the exchange of >evaluative opinions is, well, too limiting. > >Guy >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html