Richard Lahrson (tripspud@hooked.net)
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:33:33 -0800
Michael Keller wrote:
>
> I have to disagree, Steve. I've seen a few examples of EW's work in real life,
> and plenty reproduced (well) in publications, and I think the fact the EW's
> prints surpass his materials, equipment and income show that great photos come
> from the photographer. I think his prints are wonderful, and I don't "see" the
> poor quality materials or other limitations you note.
>
> IAC, no one should start out thinking that money is a limitation on their
> ability to create.
Hello,
I'll have to take Miclael's side in this discussion. The fact that
Edward Weston was able to overcome any equipment or materials limitation
because he was not wealthy is, perhaps, one of the reasons for his
successful, emotionally satisfying images. With some exceptions, such
as Cecil Beaton, really wealthy people never became great artists/photographers.
There is no reason to struggle, and without struggle, there is no art.
This all borders on personal taste, of course. I've admired Ansel
Adams work, read all of his technical books and seen many of his works
in galleries. But for me, his work does not "reach" me emotionally.
Alfred Steiglitz work "reaches" me as does the work of Frederick Sommer
who just died recently. Diane Arbus "reaches" me. Gene Smith "reaches"
me. Steven Shore does not move me.
I will not continue......the idea is that the individual is free
to respond to a photograph or not respond.
Rich Lahrson
tripspud@hooked.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:48