> Ron
>
> You say:
>
> >Please provide the published references that you are using to make your
> >comments. How is the term critical theory used in these publications and
> >how do you apply them to Eric's message? I ask that you be specific.
>
> 1. This correspondence was, I thought, on the PHOTOART list.
>
> 2. Eric made his comments and I commented on them.
> Is it unacademic to think for oneself ?
>
> I have read enough of critical theory in relation to photography to know that I
> have better things to do with my time than to become embroiled in discussions on
> the subject.
>
> Terry
Terry,
This correspondence [as you put it] was on PhotoArt list and again on
PhotoHist list. In both cases you also failed to provide the meaning and
background to what you were criticizing. It was at those times that I
wrote you that your unsubstantiated remarks are unfruitful and
counterproductive to those engaged in theorizing.
You have never given your sources, your evidence, your logic for your
attacks on semiotics, critical theory, etc....
Criticism can be fruitful, even creative. But you must show your stuff.
Remarks are irresponsible when, in response to requests, you fail to
provide evidence for your assertions--and then go on and continue the
same kind of attacks.
There is a second, more important feature of your comments. They are
often highly insulting, sometimes outright vicious.
I must say in all truthfulness that I am appalled that the alt-photo
list is reduced to your kind of commentary. Eric Fienbalatt's
initial message displays significant thoughtfulness. It is a
contribution to this list.
Nasty, and sometimes insulting remarks can have the effect of silencing
particular kinds of interest. WE WILL KNOW OURSELVES [THIS LIST] MORE BY
WHAT IS NOT [CANNOT] BE SAID, THAN BY WHAT IS SAID.
And I ask not only you Terry, but others: why should any of us theorize
about alternative processes on this list if we must then encounter such
insults?
Ron Silvers