From: Lukas Werth (lukas.werth@rz.hu-berlin.de)
Date: 02/12/01-12:31:39 PM Z
At 23:25 11.02.01 -0500, you wrote:
>It's kind of interesting to consider we have the opportunity to make so many
>different kinds of images—a very exciting prospect—and then there are
those
>folks who would like to dictate that only a certain style or school is
>appropriate—rather narrow thinking.
>
>Mark Nelson
>
>In a message dated 2/11/01 8:25:52 PM, sstoney@pdq.net writes:
>
><< In fairness to the teachers at my university, I think they do know that
>modernism is dead, but Pictorialism is even deader. Although I remember
>somebody showing some prints last semester, and our grad assistant teacher
>thought it looked like Pictorialism and recommended that she look at some
>old issues of Camera Work. He seemed to be saying it was ok to look
>Pictorial. >>
>
>
What disturbs me in this discussion (not on this list, but in many of the
art media) is all this labeling "pictorialism", "modernism", "post--": in
the last century, to produce visual art has often meant to break existing
standarts, and here these standarts are introduced again through the
backdoor. People try to determine whether something is worthwhile, or
considered as art, if it conforms to current fashion.
"The" pictoralists had their own aims in their time, which cannot be
repeated. But historically conscious quoting means of expression is, for
all I know, a fruitful, creative, and frequently used method in art.
Lukas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:39 PM Z CST