I don't recall getting Eric Feinblatt's original post, but Terry King's
sentence-by-sentence decimating response was bizarre and pathetically
narrow-minded.
Although flawed, Eric's post was at least somewhat engaging and the
points he mentioned were valid. It is at times difficult to clearly
express theoretical ideas and Eric did so without resorting to any kind
of critical doubletalk.
Terry King's knee-jerk reaction to what he repeatedly termed "critical
theory" revealed an obvious disdain for the subject. If he has indeed
read enough about the theoretical criticism of photography and doesn't
care for it (as some of us do), then I wonder why he bothered to respond
to Eric's post and systematically shread it to bits? DON'T WASTE YOUR
TIME, TERRY! IT'S SILLY FOR YOU TO BOTHER WITH THAT "CRITICAL THEORY"
CRAP! Your contributions to the more technical confines of alt.photo
are much more enlightening and valuable and not as pedantic as your
prejudiced rants about things you don't appreciate. I hope you get a
chance to reread Risa S. Horowitz's excellent response to your piece,
preferably with an open mind (if that's possible).
ITMT, could someone PLEASE tell me how I could subscribe to the PHOTOART
list? I can't seem to find it. Thanks in advance.
-Carlos