From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/14/01-10:43:29 PM Z
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Lukas Werth wrote:
> 1) the whole question of art /not art /intended as art or not is quite
> tricky for my. In modern times and in the USA only, Weegee's pictures, for
> instance, were probably not intended as art, nor much of Norman Rockwell's
> paintings, but they are exhibited as art now. (Problems multiply when you
> look, for example, at native Australian art.)
Weegee was considered "New York School," which certainly was ART. Since
Weegee himself tinkered with art/artsy effects in photography and
published several books of art-type photographs,including "Weegee's
People" (one of said people, BTW, cousin of mine) clearly intended as
human-interest, local-color-ART-type photography. You may be thinking only
of the crime/murder shots, which may be best known but only small part,
and whether he thought of them as art at the time, are today. And what
were those crowded Coney Island pics supposed to be if not
CAPITAL-A-ART???
As for Norman Rockwell, not only did he think of his work as art, and his
editors think of it as art, and his public think of it as art, but gosh if
the pointy head critics today don't start to see the light, cautiously of
course, nobody wants to get too far ahead of the pack, but fact is,
there's some serious revisionism going on -- the so-called avant garde of
that moment now being called a bunch of commercial tools (saw that just
today, somewhere -- the Times?). Anyway, a lot of us all along appreciated
Rockwell. His work will live long after folks have forgotten which one was
Motherwell and which one was Franz Kline.
best,
Judy
>
> 2) The term picturesque: I am heading at employing a general theory of
> aesthetics, very basic of course, but still well worth to be explored for
> some fields in photography. "Aesthetics" seems to me the more useful
> expression, because it potentially handles the whole set of parameters of
> what people find worthwhile to perceive and to reproduce, and it places the
> "picture" in a wider context.
>
> Oh yes, regarding Ed Freeman's page: certainly very skillfully made
> pictures, but mostly too much "licked" and polished for my taste; just what
> I deplore of much of the digital work. Much of the colour work looked to me
> like those posters sold at Rock concerts in the 70ties, motives which also
> featured on record covers of the time.
>
> Lukas
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:39 PM Z CST