It is also of rather limited vision to suggest that a photographic print
should be considered separately from other forms of printmaking simply
because it is a photograph (particularly within the context of this forum
which apparently addresses extending photographic syntax, specifically
technique, beyond what is normally considered "photographic").
During John Szarkowski's career at MOMA, he eloquently defined creative
photography by its purely photographic aesthetic qualities. Although
deservedly influential, it of course has its limits. Now that he's gone,
the Museum is attempting to expand the definition of photography and its
role as an INTEGRATED medium within the visual arts, while preserving and
respecting his curatorial legacy. And that's how it should be. The
Museum has publicly stated that its varied departments will be
collaborating more from now on. Perhaps Mr. Nadeau shouldn't get so
worked up because a museum of MOMA's stature is breaking one of his
golden rules by attempting to expand curatorship by breaking down
previous boundaries? This cross-pollination should be encouraged.
Perhaps someday we won't have to deal with the silly argument of whether
to best consider oneself an artist or a photographer or a printmaker?.
Many diletants need to call themselves artists in order to elevate their
work to a level beyond its worth. Artists don't care about labels.
They're defined by their work.
I'm a photographer. I'm an artist. I'm a photographer. I'm an artist.
She loves me. She loves me not. She loves me. She loves me not.
I'm out of petals.