From: R Kirk Williams (vertigoboy@yahoo.com)
Date: 02/20/02-10:09:14 AM Z
Well Said!!!
--- Christopher Lovenguth <chrisml@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I find it interesting that of all groups of people
> us photographers would
> not see the significant statement being made in
> having a room transform
> itself from light to dark at calculated intervals.
> Ironic to me that whom
> criticizes this wouldn't think about this idea but
> focus more on effort made
> in an object (or lack there of). But then again
> being so focused in
> alternative process is all about a precious object.
> Not that I'm personally
> attacking any of you I just find this interesting. I
> also find it
> interesting that people really believe that curators
> have that much power.
> Also the fact that some artists seem the need to
> attack the validity of
> someone else's work. There is already such little
> support of artists in this
> world and now in this post-modern era artist also
> have to look out for other
> artist questioning validity. Not questioning style,
> composition and form,
> mind you, but rather if it is altogether is worth
> looking at as art. I call
> this the "I can do that so it isn't art" syndrome.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: illovich [mailto:illovich@home.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:36 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: What is "Good Photography"?
>
> >At 08:34 PM 18/02/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >He can do whatever he wants, and the critics will
> declare that it's art,
> >especially if it
> >>annoys normal people".
> >>
> >>Link to Barry's column:
>
>>http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/2679614.
> ht
> >
> >It's the Emperor's new clothes!
> >
> >The trouble that the misinformed and ignorant
> public (like me and you) has
> >is that when we dare to speak up and say that these
> so-called "art works"
> >are preposterous and outrageous, then the defenders
> of art suddenly crawl
> >out from the crevices to chastise us for missing
> the point of the work and
> >of art itself. There seems to be no point in even
> trying to debate the
> >matter, because if the almighty curator has
> pontificated that the work is
> >art, then why would we even dare suggest that it is
> not! The appeal to
> >authority is stronger than common sense, even
> though the janitor correctly
> >recognized the trash installation for what it was
> and tried to dispose of
> it.
>
> All very well and good...when you saw the piece in
> question, what did
> you think of it?
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games
http://sports.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST