From: Pam Niedermayer (pam@pinehill.com)
Date: 09/08/02-11:35:16 AM Z
I don't understand that either. Perhaps there are some artists who think
that their "progress" is much like everyone else's progress. Most likely
this is driven by the critics.
I agree there's a hierarchy of quality, and that it's a quality of seeing.
Pam
Katharine Thayer wrote:
>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