Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:42:07 -0800
First, let me apologize in advance, for it seems that my browser will send
duplicate messages to Judy and Galina ...
-- continuing below --
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: Galina Manikova <galina@online.no>
Cc: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Subject: Re: Prints on fabric & folding screens
>
> General Post via Judy Seigel, Jan 10, Sun:
>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Galina Manikova wrote:
>> Once there was an art critic who has written a long article about one of
my
>> exhibitions, trying to understand, whether what I do is art or craft,
>> utilitarian object or not. Not enough that I am using photographic
images, I
>> am also a potter by education. How can I dare to call it art ?
Critics writing, trying to understand gnerally generally share with their
constituants this lack, so validate their newsworthiness by 'thinking out
loud.' The length of that article would prove the scope of the interest and
serve to metal your [future] lecture fees :))
>>
>> I found that totally uninteresting and irrelevant. A picture on the wall
may
>> be an utilitarian object just as a pot in the kitchen. And pottery can be
>> pure art. In some way utilitarian objects are looked down at, art is
still
>> considered to be a higher level.
In my writings, I upheld that the difference between art and craft was
semantic to process and reality. One describes the process and the other
the reality. The science of aesthetics is an analysis of our 'tools of
civilization,' and that means everything from education as a tool, to the
chair.
Ansel insisted (until he met me, and then just laughed) an advanced
photographer didn't take pictures,' but 'made pictures;' and [it became
apparent] he loved Edward Weston for his terms saying, "Today I made two
good negatives," for example when EW only had one film holder. But, ... the
point here is not to see the objects without the process nor the process
without the object and our job is to educate all the critics in the world
plus future ones, right?
:D) ^!^" "^!^ :))) (That's smile, tee hee, tee hee, gufaw ha ha)
>
>And in this half-century many "potters" make pots that have no opening, or
>are otherwise non-utilitarian, but they're still considered "craft."
The considerers are not fully with us.
>For
>one thing, there's an enormous specialization among critics-- they write
>about "art" or "photography" or "craft" or "architecture" and if they
>cross over are bound to put their foot in something. Most major ART
>critics are amazingly dumb about photography -- don't even know one
>process from another.
At least, now, they're not all men. Did you all know, Women dominated the
form? and this remains a dark mystery becuse the history had been for so
long,written by men.
>Photo historians are not necessarily better. Naomi
>Rosenblum has 8 mistakes in 5 pages in her World History of Photography
>section on "alternative processes." Not to mention that critical thinking
>generally goes in well-worn grooves -- but you knew that.
>
Actually, I'm not familiar with that expression, nor how it applies here.
Unless you mean, 'criticism is filled with retoric.'
The wonderful truth is that for the first time in our history [of
civilization] photography as fine art is being recognized. Calumet, upon
the rtirement of Fred Picker, began a marketing department, one of five, as
their Fine Art Photography marketing department. They have an education
marketing, commercial marketing; one other I can't think of and a fifth
still open. Maybe it'll be alternative processes.
>> There are a lot of well-known artists using photography in their work,
>> most of them do not know anything about the craft. I wish it were
>> possible to combine both. Unfortunately it is still ahead its time,
>> nobody understands what I am talking about.
Well, knowing anything and espousing virtues of the Petzval principle does
not diminish a lensman.
>
>Some years back the Museum of Modern Art in NYC had a show called Many
>Photographies, or Other Photographies, or like that -- which included the
>famous "artists" using photography today -- Cindy Sherman, Barbara Kruger,
>and company. But most of these were what you might call "lab tech," that
>is more or less design items or in the directorial mode. The famous
>artists rarely do hands on...
Or are their practidcal works ever shown? There are a seperate set of
motives for museum exibitions, collectors, illustrators, artists who trade
their works. How do you visualize your finished piece?
>
>Thanks to you both for esthetic discussion...
>
>Judy
>
These discussions are always stimulating.
S. Shapiro, Carmel, CA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41