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.
