Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 00:17:24 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Gary Miller wrote:
> DaVinci didn't draw the outlines of a piece and them have someone paint by
> numbers, why should photographers be different.
But Gary, that's exactly what he DID. All the "old masters" had an atelier
full of assistants. They drew the "cartoon" and the trainees filled it in.
The amount and freedom with which they filled in varied from time to time
and atelier to atelier.
The "de-authentifications" mentioned are, by the way, purely inferential.
I'd bet a nickle (make that a dollar) they'll some of them be
re-certified. The inference is usually like well, Fantin La Tour painted
this way on Shrove Tuesday so he can't have painted that way on Maundy
Friday. The sort of stuff lets congressmen sneer at academics.
That's one thing. Another is that photography should be as "different" as
it wanna be -- or not. It's its own thing & doesn't have to imitate *or*
differentiate from "painting." That's flogging a dead horse. In fact from
now on let painting worry if it measures up to photography.
The 3rd thing is "autre temps, autre moeurs." DaVinci probably didn't even
have e-mail.
The 4th thing is that I make my own gum prints (nobody else would be nut
enough to do what I do), but for photography in general I want to see the
PRINT, do I love it, hate it, does it tell me anything I don't already
know, anything I can steal?, or maybe uh oh, don't bother with that -- I
don't give a fig if the photographer had his wife chained to the enlarger
& she -- or whoever -- made it.
PS. As noted a while back I disagree with Carl about great photographers.
Now I disagree with him about great painters. Can't bear Francis Bacon.
Don't give a fig how repulsive his "ideas" are. Don't like the paint.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:54