From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 08/19/02-08:02:00 AM Z
Cole Weston can't match his father's prints using the same negative, and
Cole is a master craftsman and an artist in his own right when he makes
his own pictures. The people snapping away in your example don't stand a chance.
Thinking is important. Your example, duplicating the Weston pepper, will
never work because no other individual can duplicate E.W.'s thinking.
But we don't remember Edward Weston's thinking, we remember his pictures.
We're both saying that thinking counts, but you seem to say that
thinking trumps final product. In pure conceptual art where there is no
physical product, fine. But in visual art, a great idea can't carry the
day on its own. If the visual object doesn't resonate as a work of art,
it just doesn't matter how good an idea is supposed to be behind it.
---Carl
Christopher Lovenguth wrote:
>
> First, I said for this argument on this list there seems to be two camps.
>
> Second, I said it was an overly simple labels just for the points I was
> trying to make.
>
> Third, I can take a roll of film put it in a camera and not think and snap
> away. If I do it long enough there will be at some point an image that
> represents the use of craft. Unless you are getting so specific with the
> idea of thinking, I guess you can argue that you have to think to put in
> roll of film, go outside and push a button. And if you think people are
> always thinking while taking images, you haven't looked around on photo.net.
>
> Lastly, are you calling non-artist monkeys? There is a huge difference with
> my example and yours. Craft is a learning process. Give people the resources
> and time they will become very competent. Thinking and originality however,
> can not be taught nor will time and resources give you an idea no matter how
> much Platinum or Van Dyke you throw at it or how well you print. -Chris
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:49 AM Z CST