Re: More than =?UNKNOWN?B?MqI=?= worth

[Carmen Lizardo <carmenlizardo@yahoo.com>]

Well said!
Thank you Mr. Fulton!!

:-)

Carmen Lizardo



--- Jack Fulton <jefulton1@comcast.net> wrote:

> I should not jump into this fray.
> 	We, theoretically, are 'alternative' photographer
> processors.  
> Therefore we are using processes that are "different
> from the usual  
> or conventional: as a : existing or functioning
> outside the  
> established cultural, social, or economic system"
> (according to  
> Merriam-Webster) BUT, in general, we are rather
> conventional, even  
> Ludditical  at times.
> 	PM and the French argot is not an easy read. Since
> the VietNam 'war'  
> and Gregory Bateson/Margaret Mead, many  realize
> much of the medium's  
> imagery is controlled by whims/morals/mores/biases
> of the maker,  
> hence Crewsdon, Sherman, Wall, Levine et al abound.
> There is fiction  
> in their reality. Veracity is a property of the
> medium used not its  
> truthful verification.
> As Camden indicates, chuck the email or contact
> Michael Grillo.
> What I feel most of you are failing to understand
> from Michael's  
> query is that times have changed greatly and the
> documentary  
> photograph does not hold the cache it once did.
> I would he he (Michael) feels there MUST be a NEW
> way to look at what  
> is real around us.
> For instance . . . . in our country here in North
> America, you'll see  
> a lot of new journalism work shot at an angle. This
> comes straight  
> from New Topographics work now over twenty years
> old, but it has  
> slipped sylph-like into the visual jargon. Too what
> digital hath  
> wrought is an ability to "alter" an image. These are
> major changes.
> What is exigent one might ask? Is it the Iraq war or
> is the loss of  
> ocean quality more important. Only things tangible
> to the pocketbook  
> seems to make news but there is far far more that
> needs to be covered  
> AND with bias I'd say. Overpopulation,
> corruption/greed at the top,  
> lack of education can all be journalistically
> photographed in ways  
> not yet seen I am sure.
> So, rather than dissing Mr. Grillo, join in with the
> guy and help  
> make the world a better place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On September2006, at 5:09 PM, Camden Hardy wrote:
> 
> >> All
> >> of us know it very well that photography can be
> used to represent
> >> something untrue, and so what is new here?
> >
> > I think that's the point, although I agree that
> the posting is pretty
> > vague.  Here's my take on the whole thing, for
> those of you who  
> > care (if
> > not, hit the "delete" button immediately)...
> >
> > "...calls for works that specifically question the
> nature of visual
> > documentation, including its definition,
> potentials, semiotic  
> > systems, and
> > social resonances in a Post-Modern world."
> >
> > I interpret this as saying, "so photography has
> the ability to  
> > distort the
> > truth...now what are we, as photographers, going
> to do about it?"
> >
> > Now, I still have no idea as to what kind of
> imagery they're  
> > looking for
> > (they seem to have put too much energy into
> $.50-$1 words and not  
> > enough
> > into making it understandable), but I'm not sure
> this show deserves  
> > the
> > harsh criticism it's been getting on this list.
> >
> > It actually sounds a lot like an assignment I had
> in my  
> > "nonfiction" photo
> > class a few years ago...
> >
> >
> > Camden Hardy
> >
> > camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net
> > http://www.hardyphotography.net
> >
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com