You said:
>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.
I took a broader perspective. It is surprising that you did not recognise that.
>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.
If giving two meanings to one word and thus confusing the issue is not
doubletalk then. to quote an eminent editor, I am a banana.
>Terry King's knee-jerk reaction to what he repeatedly termed "critical
>theory" revealed an obvious disdain for the subject.
I have disdain because there is too much critical doubletalk. I have no
objection to people enjoying themselves in this way. What I do object to is the
imposition of theory on unsuspecting students who thought they were learning
photography.
> 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?
Simple. When this thread got started in photohst, Eric's contribution was the
only one which addressed the issues clearly.
> DON'T WASTE YOUR
>TIME, TERRY! IT'S SILLY FOR YOU TO BOTHER WITH THAT "CRITICAL THEORY"
>CRAP!
I agree that it is a waste of time.
> 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.
Me. Pedantic. Never.
But I have explained the basis for my prejudice. Why do you theorists go ape
when somebody points out the sandy nature of the foundations to your thought ?
Has it not occurred to you that our 'technical' discussions here broaden our
capabilities so that we are better able to communicate.
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).
Risa has, elsewhere , said that her piece was ' knee jerk' and Judy has ably
pointed out that if one expores the matter a little more deeply there may have
been other elements in Risa's piece that were to open to argument.
I will forward you the necessary information to get on to the photoart list
Terry
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