Michael Keller (keller@wvinter.net)
Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:02:03 -0500
Actually, my experience is that most photographers are no better. They have a very
narrow view of photography (eg representational, full toned b&w, whatever), and
can't understand why someone thinks an unsharp pinhole photograph, or digital
photograph, might be legitimate photography.
It's also promoted by the art institutions, including grants organizations and
government, by offering a separate category of art called "photography." I keep
asking why the NEA has a category called "visual arts" and another called
"photography." Excuse me? Thirty years ago, when photography needed help earning
legitimacy as an art, this might have been good. Now I think it holds photography
back.
Judy Seigel wrote:
> And in this half-century many "potters" make pots that have no opening, or
> are otherwise non-utilitarian, but they're still considered "craft." 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. 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.
>
>
-- Michael Keller Old + New Media
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41