Oh, Michael - you and I really don’t see eye to eye. First of all, could you please define “post-modern photographers”? Is that a group? An organization? Photographers bounded by the years in which they’re active? “School of f/64” I understand; “post-modern”, I don’t. Question: why on earth should a picture be a “beautiful object” to have value? What is not valid about “ideas” expressed through photography? You probably really hate Diane Arbus! As much as I loathe Picasso (there - I said it!), “Guernica” has no beauty about it, but it’s certainly “art”. I think that the bottom line here is that I have to challenge your assumption that a photograph - *any* photograph - can be only "about what they are of - and nothing more”. It’s rare to see a photograph that isn’t much, much more than the sum of its subject matter. I happen to think that Arbus - and Ansel - were pretty damn good photographers! -Bill On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:50 AM, Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee <michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The word "image" came into common usage when referring to photographs with > the post-modern photographers. They are not concerned with pictures as > beautiful objects; they are involved with "ideas" and invariably their > photographs are indeed about what they are of--and nothing more. This is a > debasement of art, reflection of where our so-called society has slithered > (to quote my favorite poet). > > Michael > > ============================================================================================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.