From: Gregory W. Blank (gblank@bellatlantic.net)
Date: 04/11/02-10:50:52 AM Z
By your interest I can't believe your first sentence,...however.
Zen is in all things and places. Zen is the foundation of Art, Art is a
practical application of Zen. If one is less given to the goings and
commings of the world, of making a buisness of the world, then one can enjoy
what one does and perhaps find enlightenment, regardless of where one does
it.
I have found this to be truth for myself.
on 4/11/02 4:58 AM, Katharine Thayer at kthayer@pacifier.com wrote:
> I try to stay out of these discussions any more and haven't read most of
> this one, but the subject line on this post pulled me in.
>
> I've always found it interesting that those who set themselves up as
> arbiters of what subject matter is permissible for photography and what
> isn't, say out of one side of their mouths that we should photograph
> what's around us, while out of the other side of their mouths comes some
> version of the idea that landscape is passe' and no one should be
> photographing nature any more. In other words, only those who live in
> cities or suburbs and who breathe popular culture have permission to
> photograph what's around them (or in other other words, only what
> surrounds ME should be a permissible subject matter for YOU). Those of
> us who have long since tossed out our TVs, who live as far from housing
> developments, malls and skyscrapers as we can get, who arrange our days
> by the tides and the weather, who know trees and how the ocean moves and
> where the osprey lives in the same way city dwellers might know the
> sound of the el or the way the sun glints off a particular building at a
> particular time of day, are told that what we see isn't worth
> photographing and what we know isn't worth knowing. This is just
> nonsense, and I hope Shannon or anyone else will pay it little mind.
>
> Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:29 AM Z CST