From: Gary Miller (gmphotos@earthlink.net)
Date: 02/11/01-09:15:32 AM Z
I am not surprised with the lack of well educated photography critics. I
have done some research into graduate programs that focus on photography
aesthetic, theory and critic. Now, I am not saying that they do not exist,
but a Photo history PhD program in an of itself pretty much is not existent
according to my research. It seems that you have to approach it through the
back door route of studying 20th century art history and then somehow
convince the higher powers at a university to let you study that 'other art'
form. No self respecting art critic would venture down the critique path
without a good dose of art history knowledge and probably a PhD behind them.
So photography, especially process, as Judy points out, suffers. I remember
last year when there was the Carlton Watkins show here at the SFMOMA. There
were these beautiful approximately 18" x 24" scenic albumen prints. In the
little literature that hung with the show, there was no mention of the
albumen process, the fact the Watkins had to drag around all these enormous
glass plates, or that Watkins was one of the finest albumen printers of his
day, and possibly subsequent days. No one viewing really seems to care, but
I overheard many people wondering why on these beautiful prints the skies
were so 'blown out'. Go figure....
Gary Miller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST