First define "post-modern" photography, dammit
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007, Christina Z. Anderson wrote: I can't pick my top five but I will give you some ideas. Cindy Sherman, Richard Prince, Thomas Ruff, Jeff Wall, Candida Hofer, New Topographics, I love Robert Frank, William Eggleston, Christenberry, Stephen Shore. Also Nan Goldin, I love Gursky's work, Mike and Doug Starn, Loretta Lux, Simen Johan, Malerie Marder, a bunch of the women out of Yale, it goes on, but this is a start.I agree with Chris about many (tho NOT all) of these photographers... tho I cannot stop myself from saying that I lack words to say how dumb dumb dumb R. Prince... but that's not why I'm writing, which is to wonder why Robert Frank, William Eggleston, William (?) Christenberry and even Stephen Shore are considered Post-Modern. I see Robert Frank as a classic photographer, closer to Walker Evans than Richard (ugh!) Prince. The only thing "post-modern" I can find about Wm Eggleston is that he did it in color, shocking to some -- until Szarkowski made color photography kosher, so to speak. But then I'm still waiting for someone to define post-modern photography, unless that's done chronologically-- "Post-modern" being anything after such and such a date. Otherwise... what for instance would Robert Frank have in common with, say, Cindy Sherman? (whom I do in fact see as "post-modern," one of the first perhaps). Then, tho I find Loretta Lux delightful, I could just as well put her with some of the English ladies of the 19th century who played those kinds of games with figures. etc. Oh and PS: I may be too stupid to continue living, but I do not think I have ever in my 199 years on this earth seen a more pointless over belabored photograph than the productions of Jeff Wall. They manage however to be so inane while being so humongously produced that the "pony effect" cuts in.... By "pony effect" I mean the story with the punch line "with all that xxxxxxxx there must be a pony in there somewhere." Judy
|