From: Pam Niedermayer (pam_pine@cape.com)
Date: 02/11/01-09:58:15 AM Z
OTOH, sometimes if the process is explained fully the viewers will wax
on about how brave, dangerous, difficult, time consuming, to the
exclusion of serious consideration of the images, content or
presentation. Long ago I saw a Eugene Smith exhibit in a small museum
near Boston (De Cordova - Lincoln, MA) for which the curator had done
a wonderful job describing his life, the physical beating(s) he'd
taken over Minimata (sp?), mercury poisoning, his developing/printing
process, etc.
While I was standing there studying the images for quite a while,
everyone who stopped for a moment read this, glanced at a couple of
prints, made some comment about "...wow, he risked his life for his
art...", and walked on. They said nothing about the subjects who'd
been victimized (which was probably Gene Smith's point and the reason
for risking his life), nothing about the prints themselves (which were
gorgeous technically), nothing about photographic journalism, nothing
about methodology.
What's my point? I don't know yet, still thinking this through, but
wondering whether we photographers, who by necessity are wrapped up in
process much of the time, have a grip on what the average art patron
or more casual viewer is interested in reading and seeing. Are the
serious (enough to attend an exhibit) photography viewing public
almost all photographers at some level?
Pam
Gary Miller wrote:
>
> 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
-- Pamela G. Niedermayer Pinehill Softworks Inc. 600 W. 28th St., Suite 103 Austin, TX 78705 512-236-1677 http://www.pinehill.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:38 PM Z CST