U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Re: Re: More than 2 worth - much more

Re: Re: Re: More than 2 worth - much more




Thanks for the kind words, Catherine...

IME, one of the pleasures of getting to be a Fairly Old Person (aside from the simple fact of survival) is you get to see so much nonsense bite the dust -- like Clement Greenberg's Inevitable Progression of painting to its "purest form" of thin abstract color on a 2-dimensional surface. (Of course new nonsense arrives to take its place, but there's usually a decent interval.)

cheers,

Judy

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Catherine Rogers wrote:

Judy

Thanks for your insights into 'tampering' with photographs, and your history
of a particular kind of writing about art - it was really interesting. You
reminded me of my introduction to semiotics some 26 years ago - one of the
most challenging periods of my life, but also one of the most productive
learning times too.

Thanks again Judy.
Catherine

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re: More than 2 worth - much more


On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Christina Z. Anderson wrote:

.... and even though tampering
with photographs has been done since photography began, that does not
make
the concept any less important to teach to students.
It's easy to lose sight of the fact that "tampering" is a very elastic
concept. Writing a few years ago about "Violating the Medium" (as the term
went in the days of Weston, Kirstein, et al) after exhaustive study of the
topic (that is, I was exhausted) I surmised that "tampering" was anything
not done to make the photo more "realistic." To "improve" contrast, color,
definition, grain, etc., using conventional post-camera "controls," was
expected. The same or similar to be "poetic" or "creative" was "violating
the medium."