From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/11/01-02:39:14 AM Z
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001, James Romeo wrote:
> Judy
> How right you are on Sarah Boxer. Do you rember the days when NYT had people
> on the staff who know photography?
> James
James, you bring me up short with that question because actually I don't.
By the time I came to photography (late), Deschin was long gone, and few
Times writers crossed the great divide -- in fact few anywhere seem to.
Some folks do theory and history type stuff, but don't have a clue about
process. Process folks rarely sound off on the *discourse* or ideas, &
more than a few are profoundly *contemptuous* of theory-- as if it
couldn't be true or relevant or meaningful without their permission. (Of
course Boxer seems weak on both counts.)
So Keepers of Light was (still is) a joy: Crawford made a BIG DEAL of the
effect of process on the course of the medium -- tho that never did seem
to fully register with the gentry. I remember Beaumont Newhall in a
workshop, reproached for scanty wall labels at MoMA, smiled, waved his
hand, & said IN SO MANY WORDS: "Oh who cares, they're so beautiful."
But speaking of NY Times: remember John Canaday? The worst of it is that
I've heard critics and dealers (in panel discussions) agree that the NY
Times is the single most influential publication in the country on art
(more influential even than Post-Factory, if you could believe). The point
made was that it comes out while the work is still hanging, and everybody
who writes about art anywhere reads it.
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST