Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]So you would agree then that Warhol advanced the world of art rather then destroyed it? At 05:57 PM 10/21/2009, you wrote: > > Advertising IS maleficence in action. Editorial is not so much > > better in my book, just promoting the rational. It's easy to > > rationalize "making a living" doing just about anything. Too bad > > that seems to be where the argument ends, that making a living > > justifies ignoring the ethical comportment of the industries we work > > in. I can only wish I could choose which images could be stripped > > naked, exploited, and discarded and which ones could not. The very > > idea of purposely making an image for that destiny turns my > > stomach. Like a rack of ribs to a Buddhist. > > > > >I'm a vegetarian photographer of eastern spiritual bent who has no idea >what " stripped naked, exploited, and discarded " means as I close my >third eye and try to imagine a picture this has happened to taken by me or >anyone else. >Advertizing photography often is quite good half the time better than what's >on the chincy gallery's walls in Chelsea. And often IS what's on those >walls. Or the MET or MOMA. >Irving Penn just died last week what was he doing stuff for the Sistine >chapel ceiling? He was a commercial photographer illustrating products to be >sold on the open market. Capitalism at its finest. Often those products >were clothing but you name it. > > >Mark William Rabiner > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information