it (them sixties) kinda 'splains the popularity of Photography. Like the
popularity of the 'lectric guitar, photography was the easy way to make art
(some people grasped that in both cases, mastery was just as hard with
photography and the guitar as clarinet and painting, only starting wuz
easier, but most folks thought they were great as soon as they made a print
or could play a I-IV-V blues progression).
So, just like with the original Pictorialism, some people wanted to separate
from the egalitarianism of the medium, and sought a route that was more
time-consuming, harder, more 'spensive, and required "true" esthetic
sensibility, so they could wear the smock and beret.
I recall a story that when someone (Les Krims?) was preparing for their
"debut", and wuz asked by the galley director or someone if they were an
"artist" or a "photographer": "what's the diff?" "well, if you're a
photographer, we can sell your pieces for $300; if you're an artist,
$5000..." (someone post the story correctly please)
so much for Newhall's "what's the difference, they're so beautiful."
i don really believe this (completely), i'm jus tryin to stir up trouble.
some people noticed how nice platinum prints (and other stuff) were...
Also, the quality of traditional materials was deteriorating, and people
realized that to maintain quality, they'd have to take control...
After the price of silver went way up, Kodak (and others) raised their
prices and reduced the silver content... i recall a document that wuz meant
for Kodak stockholders, it bragged that profits would go up, since the
silver content had been reduced, the price of silver had gone down, but
they'd kept their prices high... in fact it was the beginning of their slide
down (we noticed).
"Cuspidor Coppinger" and "Mongo Ponton"- what great names!
..shut up, Jim
-------------------------
Plywood and Rhetoric
graphic design from both sides of the brain
plyboy@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~plyboy
"Momma DID raise a fool"