From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/15/00-01:23:35 PM Z
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Gregory Parkinson wrote:
>
> Thought Experiment: what if the photo had been of a muscular
> young man, on all fours throwing a steamy look at the camera?
>
Yes, Greg, that's exactly the point : it ISN'T. If that were even EVER
present in *mainstream* photog (rather than gay photog) the whole topic
would be a different one.
And permit me to suggest a new acronym, for Leslie: ISGYST. I've heard it
MANY a time -- after the fact, in the hall, after you've stuck your neck
out with a question or comment to speaker: "I'm So Glad You Said That."
And one other point before rushing back to printer: Let us not confuse
the ACTUAL role of Newton's models with the FANTASY picture he creates. I
haven't the build or the attitude for that kind of play, nor can I be a
ballet dancer, or jungle explorer or 16th century baroness. The charm of
photo tableaux is the play, the fantasy, the dramatics, or if you will
theatre. Newton's work a particular theme, but we're intended to, if you
will, deconstruct it -- to analyze the mechanisms, the clues, and visit
the theatre. To take this literally as an intended picture of the world,
let alone a prescription, is to miss the point and the fun. Or, the "art."
For another example, take a look at September Artforum, which has a
MARVELOUS selection of Cindy Shermans. True a repulsive one on the cover,
but most of the others are absolutely brilliant. I know it's reflexive in
photo circles to make her the antichrist. I find her work uneven, but
these are a delight, and I defy anyone to not at least see the interest.
We aren't meant to BE or LOVE or IMITATE any of those persona -- but to
appreciate the FICTION and the concept. Similarly Newton. (And all art
that's not as heavy as a 2-ton truck.)
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT