From: Keith Gerling (keithgerling@att.net)
Date: 09/08/02-11:42:10 AM Z
Well, you have to admit, it was somewhat inflamatory to pin the "calendar
artist" label on old Ansel, (American as Apple-Pie Ansel Adams!) He's by no
means my favorite, so its ironic that I've become his defender. But let's
face it, here's an artist with a large following, who has made contributions
both as a technician, artist, and environmental spokesperson - a person who
has been recently celebrated by no less than the Museum of Modern Art, and
here you are reducing him to the role of a "calendar artist". OK. That's
fine. But really, the onus is on you to defend your position, to explain to
us his failings, and I don't think you've done that. All we know is you
don't like him, and that seems to be all you need to remove him from the
roster of Artists. Popularity alone does not establish one as an artist,
but neither should it be reason enough to exclude somebody. Obviously. You
claim that the consensus of the "critics of today" is that he his a
"calendar artist", but you fail to mention who those critics might be.
You claim Ansel Adams reveals nothing, that he merely shows us what we
already know to be beautiful. Well golly! Imagine the audacity of this
man: actually focusing on beauty! Too bad he did not live to be able to
learn from true artistes like Cindy Sherman, with her huge photographs of
fuzzy, moldy entails and her "wurst-insertions" (no "calendar artist" here,
that's for sure!)
As for "ridicule", perhaps that's a strong word. I was just reacting to
your, well, "arrogance" is the word that comes to mind - that, and whatever
that trait is of yours that compels you to pit New York against the rest of
us. As I love New York, and I like you (sorry, but I've know New York far
longer!) I'm not going to pursue it. (and particularly not about
environmental issues, which are a sensitive topic...)
Keith
(author of "Heating your Home with a Violux Light Source - and 100 Other
Tips for the Environmentally Conscious Gum Printer"
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 12:39 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: "CALENDAR ARTIST"
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Keith Gerling wrote:
> "Preachy wide-open space types?" ME? So, is everything west of the Hudson
a
That phrase was said (mentally) in a light ironic tone, if you could
believe a *jest*, which I doubt would have offended if spoken, though
perhaps it would, since you seem in a mood to be offended. I'm really
sorry about that... but if you re-read the comments I was responding to,
you might see where it came from.
In any event, I fear you've gone off for a spin, either a failure of
reading comprehension, or freewheeling embroidery, adding & imputing
meanings not given or intended, thus landing well off the mark.
So let me repeat what I did mean/say as simply and clearly and calmly
as possible:
Ansel Adams does not interest me as an artist. (OK so far?) I don't think
& don't think I said "landscape photography is dead," nor that it's boring
(tho I find Adams boring), but I did say or mean that just because
something performs a service ("discovering" a certain area which I never
heard of), doesn't mean it's art.
You say, "I suppose I should expect your ridicule,
> having questioned your assertion that we ALL somehow KNOW that "nature
is> grand".
And I am again non-plussed. I didn't mean ridicule, and it's not clear to
me why you felt ridiculed. I certainly admire your photography and art --
I just disagree with you about Ansel Adams. And I always never liked
Adams -- I remember seeing his trees in an early Beaumont Newhall -- 25
years ago -- I thought the steeple shape was pure corn (all by myself --
imagine AD Coleman stealing my idea !!).
But even if we DON'T know that "nature is grand," to me that message
doesn't make Ansel Adams an artist, or hardly one in my pantheon. *I*
knew it, and I want art to tell me something I didn't know before. If
there are some benighted souls who don't know it, do I have to have my art
reduced to the lowest common denominator for them?
You say, Adams's "works have opened
> many eyes in more ways than one, and it is reasonable to suggest that
his
> works might have value, even *artistic* value for centuries to come."
If they opened eyes, that's fine -- though as noted that's not necessarily
art. Or let's say for the purpose of this discussion that it is art --
it's an easy art, crowd pleaser -- apparently the *many* love him. Is
that ridicule or *description*?
I think I have to send you yesterday's e-mail again offlist, to see if you
can see if I really said what you felt I said... But it also occurs to me
to mention, if you in the country are striving so mightily to conserve
energy (no mean feat, I realize) and some folks in the city are so
careless and profligate as you describe, and we STILL in the aggregate use
less energy per capita, what that must mean about the city as hub of fuel
economy -- even better than I supposed !
But most of New York state is rural, Westchester is full of mansions and
estates, further upstate is farm and orchard and lake country, so you
can't speak of the *state* as scoring lower than California as you do
below -- I meant only the city. And it's the city, with mass transit, I
advocate as energy saver. Scarsdale & Albany not.
J.
> "wide-open space", and the inhabitants "wide-open space *types*?"
> Puhleeeeze. And PREACHY? Look whose talking. Really, Judy, you ought
to
> drop this silly us (NY-ers) agin' them (the rest of 'em) attitude.
> Particularly regarding environmental responsibility. Your New York
> chauvinism is kind of touching - even though you use it like a club to
beat
> the rest of us, or in this case ME - for having the temerity to suggest
that
> Ansel Adams might have made successful revelations. Yes, your statistics
> are true. Well, *mostly* true: NYers use less fossil fuel per capita
(much
> less? I don't see it) mostly as a result of the transportation sector, as
> you suggest, and for being low-ranking amongst the states for industry.
For
> residential energy use, NY is pretty much the same as other states, and
> scores lowers than California. But I wouldn't wear the stats as a merit
> badge, because its not like these stats were earned by means of any
> conscious effort. I know NY. I've had to open the windows in an
apartment
> in Hells Kitchen in the dead of winter many many times because there was
no
> way to cut off that steam heat. This, while the family shivered
responsibly
> in Illinois. I've spent considerable time and money in order to maximize
> my energy conservation, and I resent your notions. I drive no SUV. I use
> solar power and I sweat considerably cutting and splitting wood for the
> fireplace, so it really ticks me off to have you place me in a category of
> some energy glutton.
>
> Look, my "tree-hugging" comment was made as a lighthearted side-note to my
> comments regarding Ansel Adams. I suppose I should expect your ridicule,
> having questioned your assertion that we ALL somehow KNOW that "nature is
> grand". But we don't. We have no innate understanding of the glories of
> nature, and why should we? Perhaps you are personally familiar with the
> places where AA photographed, but most people aren't. His works have
opened
> many eyes in more ways than one, and it is reasonable to suggest that his
> works might have value, even *artistic* value for centuries to come.
>
> Keith
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 7:10 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: RE: "CALENDAR ARTIST"
>
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Keith Gerling wrote:
>
> > Judy sez:
> >
> > "There may be mastery, beauty, et al, in Adams, but no revelation. We
> KNOW
> > nature is grand."
> >
> > Oh we do? Is that a universal truth? Hardly. Many (perhaps most)
would
> > gladly forfeit the "grandness" in return for monetary rewards. Adams
> > revelations were elementary: he revealed that these places even
EXISTED.
> > The Hetch Hetchy valley was destroyed and will never be seen again.
Why?
> > Because it happened before people like Adams could "reveal" it to us.
> >
> > Keith (in a particularly tree-hugging mood)
>
> What has tree hugging got to do with it? Let us not confuse USEFUL, even
> vitally important, with CREATIVE, or "art."
>
> In fact, I could make the argument that the highest art has no practical
> value at all except its own sweet self. It is its own justification,
> broadening our minds, adding to our graphic consciousness, expanding our
> vision, or just existing in the world. What earthly **use** is [name your
> masterpiece]...???? In fact art with a USE is (by definition, I bet)
> propaganda.
>
> Nyah nyah,
>
> Judy, who is also in a tree-hugging mood, having just finished Barbara
> Kingsolver's "Prodigal Summer" on tape in the studio, but reminding you
> preachy wide-open space types that denizens of NYC use less (much less)
> fossil fuel per capita than you folks who have to drive 5 miles (even NOT
> in an SUV) to get a newspaper or a quart of milk, as we not only have mass
> transit, but the corner deli, and that our architecture -- row houses and
> other forms of massed dwellings -- use far less fuel to heat than your
> freestanding buildings of one or two stories, unless you have solar
> everything, which would of course be lovely.
>
> So save the environment by moving to a city.
>
> J..
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:08 PM Z CST