From: Jack Fulton (jefulton1@attbi.com)
Date: 09/03/02-12:38:14 AM Z
Now, listen here . . if Norman Rockwell is okay then why not Ansel? I'd say
that to say AA is a calendar artist is to recognize his, (and perhaps David
Meunch) contribution as an interpreter of the American 'majestic' outdoors.
There is a subdued Theodore Roosevelt in AA along with a reasoned sentiment
for John Muir. Others who've come after WWII have emulated AA's style
because they thought it to be photographic excellence and also very dynamic
visually. To sell calendars, others cloned sordid cliches but never quite
got what Ansel was after.
Now, mind you, I'm not a wild advocate of his work but remember being mighty
impressed originally. Yes, I do think he could have grown with his work as
he seems to have remained static in his social presentations. Money I
suppose.
There are far fewer art critics I've enjoyed. Shall we discuss Ruskin here?
I see them more as reporters telling us about an exhibit. Few write
substantially interested and valuable critiques of work. It takes an
artist/critic along the lines of Victor Burgin or Alan Sekula to make some
sense . . though, darn .. hard to read. Maybe they're too social.
Jack
>> Who knows what "art critics of the future" will think? That's why we have
>> the future -- we don't know what it holds.
>
> Well, Jeff, I was trying to be kind. To leave some wiggle room for Ansel
> Adams as "artist." If we count just the critics of today, I think
> the consensus would be "calendar artist," as I believe someone in this
> thread already pointed out. I didn't coin the term.
>
> J.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:07 PM Z CST