Sounds like you've got it all wrong Carlos. Nobody objects to photographs
shown outside their photo dept. The question, posed by Shauna Frischkorn
(FRISCHSL@jccw22.cc.sunyjcc.edu) was about why they (MOMA) can't tell the
difference between a true photograph (from a negative) and prints produced
by traditional methods "...usually created on paper through the use
of a printing press." (their own definition)
>After all, they ARE prints.
> Mr. Nadeau's three classifications of printmaking based on technique
Correction again. It ain't Mr. Nadeau's system. It is a universal system
described in thousands of books and articles in many languages. There are
three main categories and then you fall into "mixed media" or "combination
techniques", etc. I'm simply using this internationally recognized system.
It's not *my* system. It's the one used by everybody.
>serve only the most parochial of academic purposes. To claim that MOMA
>has committed a curatorial faux pas on the level of a "regional" art
>museum is rather condescending toward those institutions that he
>considers of lesser curatorial merits.
It is indeed and I don't apologize if I don't like to lie publicly. Now you
know why I have always stayed out of politics:-)
>It is also of rather limited vision to suggest that a photographic print
>should be considered separately from other forms of printmaking simply
I agree. Who suggested that anyway?
>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 is one of the very best English euphemistic translation of: "by making
a stupid mistake" I have ever heard. Certainly politicians could use you as
a very eloquent writer --this is a compliment. The problem is that some
people can see through this. I know, we are a minority but...
>This cross-pollination should be encouraged.
Your words. I personally never use a translation if I can help it.
>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 agree 100%
..
This matter has been the subject of a considerable amount of offlist
correspondence. One of the reasons being that this kind of *possible*
blunder at such a high level has been known to be cause for dismissal... I
know that this may not be understood by non-specialists.
The consensus however is that there must be some logical explanation that
was overlooked by the original poster. There is a very simple way to find
out. I will simply take the original request:
----------------------
>During a recent visit to NYC I saw an exhibit at MOMA entitled
>"Thinking Print," a show featuring prints made by contemporary artists