From: Lukas Werth (lukas.werth@rz.hu-berlin.de)
Date: 02/15/01-04:08:57 AM Z
At 23:43 14.02.01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>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
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
Judy,
Yes, I was probably a bit rash about Weegee - I did not mean to disqualify
him in any case. But this makes me want to point out that art may very well
be an aspect of things, rather than bein their identity or not.
About Rockwell: I read he tried several times in his life to establish
himself as a painter in high art (several trips to Paris), but didn't
succeed. And when asked about whether his pictures were / were meant to be
art, he answered at best ambiguously. He seems to have admired Pollock
(witness "the conaisseur") - which is beyond my comprehension.
However, the point I wanted to make was just that pieces made for other
ends (including also purely personal motives) may be afterwards seen as art.
Sandy,
trying to bring my criticism of what I have seen of Ed Freeman on his page
to the point: his pictures seem to me overloaded with special effects, much
in the way a child uses new toys. He relates the symbolism of his pictures
back to Rennaissance paintings, but to me at least some, mostly the
coloured ones, appear shrill. This is certainly also a matter of taste, but
I would hold that their effect seems to be calculated with the advertisment
industry in mind: catch the eye for a second. I could imagine them very
well as eye-catchers for, say, an advertisment for Swiss watches or a new
credit card. In contrast, I enjoy pieces of art which attract the attention
for a longer period, and want you to return to look at them (as is the case
with good Rennaissance paintings).
I do not know the other Spanish photographers you mentioned. Can you advise
on literature on these/Spanish pictorialism? Maybe you have writtten
something on this topic yourself?
Lukas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/06/01-04:55:39 PM Z CST