Re: Revival

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sun, 8 Sep 1996 09:24:24 -0400 (EDT)

I think discussion of "revival" misses a couple of points: styles in art
change rapidly in 20th century, and photography had actually been in F-64
doldrums for a long, long time, was overdue for a revision.

And although photography had been influenced by cubism (many
photographers, from Coburn & Abbott up & down made photographs explicitly
supposed to look like abstract art) the *technique* of photography was
rigid, the law being do NOT fold/spindle or mutilate (as I mention in
forthcoming article elsewhere). The breakthrough in the late 60s actually
claimed the hands-on right -- long a given in "art," where drip and rip
were the norm -- for photography.

But we see two strands of revival, one, like Betty Hahn, using
post-modern irony (as in her Lone Ranger series), other, generally view
camera & platinum, was holier, straighter, purer, sharper than ever. You
can't discuss "revival" without making this distinction.

Betty Hahn's images were done, not with view camera, but with 35mm
enlarged. She also did great series by Mickomat -- a camera with plastic
lens in shape of Mickey Mouse.

Incidentally, Terry, I gave a bunch of this info to the inquiring person a
while back, never heard from her again. I also did what might have been
first interview in print with Betty Hahn in the late '70s, when I was
myself just contemplating toe-in-the-photography-water. Knew enough to ask
questions, but none of the answers: her every word was a revelation. (I
repeat mention I made after College Art -- she has new book, "Photography or
Maybe Not," from University of New Mexico Press.)

Incidentally, Betty's teacher at Indiana State, Henry Holmes Smith, was
surely one of the seminal figures in the revival -- if we're talking
post-modern, not view camera...

Judy