bmaxey1@juno.com
Date: 11/03/00-03:51:43 PM Z
>>It would appear that you have placed entertainment over education. By
>>promoting Mapplethorpe as one of your "five", you have already
sacrificed
>>intellectual integrity for "spunk", as you put it. Perhaps you have
>>understimated your audience, or perhaps you just want good reviews. In
any
>>event, the inclusion of Mapplethorpe has already lowered the bar to
the
>>extent that the rest of your selections will be meaningless.
I agree with the above. That "Photographer" should never be listed in a
list of the 5 most influential. Photography has far more important
contributors and he is not one of them. He is just one of many to come
along that upsets people.
I would like clarification about what your goals are. For example, are
you talking just about alt photography or all of photography?
Photographers only or those who made photography possible? The history of
photography is a vast subject. If you want a serious discussion, you must
talk about both aspects. A discussion about photographic history must
include people besides photographers.
The problem is that if I post 5, someone might post 5 different ones then
someone else argues about the choices and this becomes a battle. There
are hundreds of photographers out there that are worthy of inclusion and
many who are not knows as photographers that also warrant mention.
Someone wrote:
>>A well known art critic once told me that Mapplethorpe was the most
important photographer of
>>the second half of the 20th century because he was the only
photographer that
>>made the critic want to know the people in the photographs. This so
>>accurately points to the role of desire, how we use images to complete
our
>>fantasy.
This is one critic's opinion. If this "Critic" can only find one example
of "Wanting to know the people in the photograph ..." then he needs to
look at more images. Personally, I doubt the majority of people who see
the subjects he tends to photograph would want to know the people in the
photograph. The biggest problem with "Art" these days is if you say
anything against the work, there must be something wrong with you. If you
hate mappelthorp and the subject of his work then you are a "This or
that" basher.
You can never win.
Mappelthorp should be mentioned in passing perhaps, but be honest. Do not
critic his work. Point it out and explain why he is so controversial, but
only in passing. There are far more important people than him. Add his
work as an addendum to the discussion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/01/00-11:46:55 AM Z CST