Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:17:09 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Curtis Fant wrote:
> Before condeming his photography as atrocious, it might be useful to
> note that his litmus test for any photograph(Mortensen's) was approval
> from the viewer. So bad taste? maybe, but many people did want to view
> and like his photographs. Picture-pictorialism-I am finding more and
> more, even from the 1800's that used the same test for the work they
> did.
And thanks to you for the elaboration. Now for once I do wish I could jpeg
-- you should SEE that Spanish babe. But I don't think "popularity" is the
criterion, or John Keane's big-eyed little waifs would be the best art in
America. Of course the popularity earns him a place in photo history not
accorded by Beaumont Newhall -- to A. D. Coleman's lasting indignation...
But still doesn't improve the photos. Do you know that a grad student in
the 1970s did a study of 19th-century photo press. Of the 10
most-frequently mentioned names, only 1 is known today. And, as a lover of
early photo press, I am willing to declare: small loss, by & large. I
assume that's why Camera Work cut such a wide swathe. The existing media
were pretty bad esthetically.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:50