Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search][responding to tina and nathan, whos comments are below] Well ... I'm nothing if not an art photographer (lord knows I'm not any _other_ kind of photographer), and I disagree with these sweeping generalizations of art photography. Certianly there's a lot of crap out there. Recently I saw some large cibacrhomes of single colors (why paint rothcoe when you can photograph it), and I think cindy sherman's doll photos are beyond garbage, but in art galleries you find sally mann and anna gaskill and any other number of very talented people. I like the photo on the cover of this months art in america "http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/" and I think Erwin Wurm is funny. Now. What "art photography" might be interpreted as in your local art gallery, might vary. In some places, thomas kinkade gets his stuff hung on walls. Go figure that one out and explain it to me. http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/fallen/ http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/gallerycard.jpg http://www.netaxs.com/~cassidy/milla/ Tina Sed first: > OK, guys, every time I go to a local art gallery featuring photography > I have to come back and vent my spleen with this group to get > re-grounded. Then nathan sed: >I have roughly the same experience whenever I >look at Art photography. It seems that to be an >Artist in our medium you must photograph totally >uninteresting objects, preferably tilt the camera, >mis-focus and the more garish the colors, the better. >Add a deep-sounding statement and voila--a piece >of crap has turned into Art. If you cross-process >the film and make the print really big, it helps too. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html