Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/07/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George, I disagree. Jim has a streak of humour in his photographs, which is the underlying emotion in his work. Arbus was into weirdness for the sake of shock value. She is not a photographer whose work appeals to me at all. Neither does Arthur Tress - too artificial and staged for shock value as well. YMMV, of course. Cheers Jayanand On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:26 AM, George Lottermoser <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote: > > On Jul 12, 2014, at 1:10 PM, Leowesson wrote: > >> I think Tress went one or 2 steps past Arbus-wierd. Meatyard also. >> >> Leo Wesson >> leowesson.com >> >>> On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:28, George Lottermoser <george.imagist at >>> icloud.com> wrote: >>> >>> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/11/arthur-tress_n_5574740.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063> > > absolutely agree Leo. > > These are far more illustrative > than Arbus's fairly straight documentary style of unusual subjects > > our own Jim Shulman > seems to have picked up Dianne's mantel > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > > http://www.imagist.com > http://www.imagist.com/blog > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information