[rollei_list] Re: (No From: Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

  • From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 19:48:29 -0500

Marvin -

My comment to has nothing to do with high art, low art, or art
anywhere in between. Neither does it have to do with commercial
success, critical success, cultural or political acceptance, or
psychological interpretation. And equally immaterial is your training
in photography as art. I am simply pointing out that a statement any
any single artist being the top choice of any body of critics by any
measure of mastery is absurd, nonsensical and meaningless.

If common sense and a little thought does not clarify this for you,
the fact that you have heard from several knowledgeable judges on this
list which contradict you view should be proof enough.


Eric Goldstein

--

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Marvin <marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Eric, I never claimed to have experience with the art world in any
> post past or present.
> I claim to have been trained in a school which considers photography an art.
> This I am sure encompasses much aesthetic and intellectual snobbery-but that
> is the nature of the beast.
>
> Second, I think that Mapplethorp is considered the master of the square
> format, both for the aesthetic and  the philosophical content of his
> work-which has been severely psyco-analyized by art critics, even
> politicians since his work is so controversial. These considerations are
> aside from the phenomenal sales of his work which I never considered and
> which Mark R pointed out(thanks).
>
> I realize this "high art" approach often puts me at odds with photographers
> such as yourself, who have well developed and perhaps successful careers in
> photography.
> The danger with this kind of internet discourse centers around semantics its
> use or abuse.
> I think that we are at cross purposes because we are often talking about
> different genres, commercial-family album-documentary-fashion etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Marvin.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Goldstein
> Sent: 08 March 2010 00:01
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: (No From: Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Marvin -
>
> You may, but if you have the serious knowledge and experience with the
> critical art world that you've claimed in the past, you would not be
> asking. To state that any one artist is at the top cannot be
> substantiated and is unsupportable...
>
> Eric Goldstein
>
> --
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:47 AM,  <rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Thanks for your input Eric, may I ask why the statement ludicrous?
>>> Marvin.
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: