From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/09/02-01:00:34 AM Z
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, George Huczek wrote:
> I'm glad that you are not the only one who found many of the images in the
> book to be disappointing! I don't mind seeing nice work done using any
> technique -- and there are a few nice pictures in the book made with
> pinhole cameras and Holgas I will admit -- but I am of the opinion that it
> would have been better to include more "straight" images. There are a
> small number of nice ziatypes, but not enough balance showing good
> photography. My bias is towards less experimental work that can be
> understood by looking at it instead of by reading the caption which states
> what the artist was trying to achieve.
George, I wish you would expand on that. I'm serious. What is "good
photography"? Do we agree on that? My impression of the book BTW is not
that the caption states "what the artist was trying to achieve." After
all, if we could state that in words, we wouldn't need the picture. But
the caption outlines HOW the artist achieved it, which is the point of the
book.
To me, the point of "alt" in general is the enormous freedom it gives....
not to just do another Ansel Adams except hand coated. That's only a tour
de force.
I didn't think I myself would do a number of those tricks, but wasn't it
nice to see that someone else did them, even just so you don't have to?
Or, what's the point of showing that "straight" photos can be done by hand
coating? We know that! So that's my "argument." I don't think you've done
enough of yours... Besides which, your liking the Holgas and pinhole
cameras seems to go against your wish for "good photography." Do you mean
funny photography is OK if it's just the lens..???. Or?????
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST