Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/11

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Salgado Revisted
From: Allan Wafkowski <>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 23:02:19 -0500

Let me try again:

He composes well, and he prints well (if he does his own printing). His 
subject matter borders on the maudlin. If you have seen 10 of his 
bloated bellies, you have seen the range of his work. His philosophy is 
foolish, and when he uses his camera for propaganda it reflects the 
foolishness of this philosophy. He's the champion of parlor radicals 
because they too are foolish. Foolish in this case means making note of 
social ills and offering even greater ills as solutions. If Salgado had 
not joined his photography closely with his social thought, I would not 
have. He did, I must too, to properly evaluate his work. How you are 
able to evaluate the two separately is beyond me.


> You are using $100 dollar words to say that you disagree with his world
> view. Exactly how much you disagree with his world view is difficult to 
> say;
> but then, that is the reason one uses such language in the first place. 
> You
> get to say that he is a good photographer but to imply, in jargon, that
> "something" is wrong. If you just said he was a poor photographer you 
> would
> be laughed off the list but to subtly imply that his philosophy is 
> unsound
> is a jab that is difficult to pin down.
> So if you disagree with his philosophy, then just say so and explain 
> why. Do
> not cast unsupported assertions cloaked in fancy words that are charged 
> with
> emotion but essentially meaningless.
> John Collier

- --
To unsubscribe, see

Replies: Reply from Andrew Schroter <> (Re: [Leica] Re: Salgado Revisted)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <> (Re: [Leica] Re: Salgado Revisted)
Reply from "Matthew Powell" <> (Re: [Leica] Re: Salgado Revisted)