From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 09/08/02-03:27:01 AM Z
Pam Niedermayer wrote:
>
> I think doing landscape photography is a very satisfying process.
> Whether it's art or not, or boring or not, doesn't really matter all
> that much. I just enjoy doing it, it helps me see the land around me
> better, take notice of those things I'd otherwise drive by not noticing.
>
What makes no sense to me is the idea, promoted by one or more persons
earlier in the discussion, that there is a hierarchy of content that
people have to work through as their work evolves, and that anyone still
doing landscapes is lower on the evolutionary scale than someone doing,
say, digital montages or street photos or self-indulgent personal
phototherapy. I'll take Sally Mann's landscapes, or Richard Misrach's,
or Josef Sudek's, or Ansel Adams' (early work) for that matter, over
most of the digital montages, street photos, or the like that I've seen.
There's a hierarchy of quality in photography; it's not related to
content but to the quality of seeing. Carl's advice is right, to be
willing to really look, instead of just dismissing things out of hand.
Sometimes the simplest things can be the most profound.
kt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:08 PM Z CST