From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/28/02-08:30:32 PM Z
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
> Just saw the Chuck Close show at Pace Wildenstein here in NYC and can
> honestly say it just goes to show what can happen when a wonderful idea/
> medium like the Daguerreotype falls into the wrong hands. These pictures
> have none of the charm, mystery, expressiveness or beauty of a classic Dag --
> or even most of the other contemporary Dags I've seen. Instead, they are
> slick, machine-made parodies of the traditional form.
Whatever the problem is or isn't, Arthur, I loved your rant -- a HEARTFELT
reaction to art, which is the way it should be.
I'm sort of on the fence myself -- my original reaction to Close having
someone do those dags was, big deal -- tho I do separate the making from
the idea. After all the old masters often did only a sketch. But having
seen many of the dags in repro -- (I think scanned from the dag & then
iris printed) I found them very beautiful.... maybe moreso than the
original?
In fact I found the dags at the Sara Morthland show NOT very wonderful to
look at -- too shiny, even glary -- I liked the view in the book better.
Speaking of which, there's an interesting review of "the book" -- Lyle
Rexer's Photography's Antiquarian Avant-Garde, the New Wave in Old
Processes by Leah Ollman in January Art in America.
I found her respectful and interested -- but to me, even a photo critic
sort of glances off dead center, dwelling on peripheral stuff, because
they don't know the field. Ollman is very smart, but.....
Anyway, the review got a full page, with Jerry Spagnoli's dag of WTC in
flames reproduced. Looks gorgeous in repro... Very much like a 19th (or
maybe it was 18th) century painting in the auction section.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:26 AM Z CST