> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 03:49:21 +1000
> From: TERRY KING <101522.2625@compuserve.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <alt-photo-process@vast.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Critics and PM
>
>
>
> Bob
>
> You said:
>
> "Not all photography during the last 150 years was all that imitative of
> painting or "second-hand.""
>
> I said 'much was ' ,not all of it.
>
> You also said :
>
> "There never was anything second-hand about fine photography. I don't know
> where you got that idea."
>
> Bob, take a closer look.
>
> You said
>
> "In the long run critics don't amount to a hill of beans. In the short run
> they're a mixed bag of beans. Like peanuts, they're handy to have between
> meals."
>
> Critics have a very significnant effect on how the public reacts to photography.
> What is your reaction to photographiuc reviews in the New York Times? And what
> do you think students in colleges are taught?
>
> You said:
>
> :As for the role of modernism in dispensing with gingerbread, it was a
> purging. Now we're sophisticated enough to appreciate gingerbread within
> esthetic reason. Gargoyles don't frighten me. To this PM photographer, a
> gargoyle is sometimes more to the point than other goyles. "
>
> I hate to ask this Bob, but what is it that makes you think that you are a PM
> photographer. Answer on one side of the post card only please.
>
> Terry King
Is this the right teapot for this tempest? Why don't you take it to the
photoart list, where it can more comfortably rage on, inconclusively, ad
nauseum.
C. Seymour