From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/09/02-12:34:21 AM Z
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Keith Gerling wrote:
Keith & co, Oh my, can there be such dudgeon at my disrespecting old Ansel
that it's clouding folks' minds? Which is the most benign interpretation I
can put on this saying & saying I said what I never did say and bad bad
Judy.
And seems to get nuttier. Today someone says I said that because a lot of
people like Ansel Adams that means he's no good. Could Groucho Marx do
better?
So listen up folks - if I'm not going to persuade you about Adams (and
little did I know -- better it seems to disrespect the Pope), maybe I can
persuade you about reading comprehension. If you trouble to read what's
written, you may not get a chance to jump up and down and do art rage, but
in the long run you look better, even, dare I say it?, more ethical.
I'm not going to go back over this farrago line by line -- it's not worthy
of my talents -- or my dwindling patience. But let the example above stand
for the reductio ad absurdum of this entire episode, which is no credit to
this list. (My gym has a "spin club," -- about 20 people spinning like mad
in unison in a room with the door closed... Only they have bicycles.)
Of course I may be living in my own bubble, thinking words and sentences
have actual meanings, even imagining I speak with a certain precision.
Anyway, let's do that last one again and let it stand for the whole
farrago.
I maintain -- are you ready -- that just because a lot of people like
Ansel Adams, or Vincent Van Gogh, or Thomas Kincaid or whoever, doesn't
prove he's a great artist. This is a fairly simple concept, and I can't
imagine subject to dispute. What's the problem? I begin to think Freud--
you're being defensive.
As for "explaining Adams'failings," as Keith demands today -- Come on,
that's what started this whole thing in the first place. You'll like it
better the second time around? OK, look below Keith's comments following
-- it's there: I explained it yesterday. To put it even more sharply, I
find most of his glories of nature trite. Oh OK, I'll amend that to the
"glories" I've seen.
As for the Museum of Modern Art -- when you agree with them, they are the
ultimate authority,it seems, but when you don't (they showed Cindy Sherman
more recently than Ansel Adams, and what a hoo ha we had about Gerhard
Richter this very season) they're clearly despicable.
Meanwhile, good grief, Keith, don't compound the felony -- you're saying
(below) that I said "the consensus of critics today is that AA is a
'Calendar Artist.'" I've written so many words late at night, I shouldn't
be held entirely accountable -- but I like to think I've done better than
that. I haven't a clue what "the consensus" of critics today is... What
critics? I don't think they, whoever they are, pay as much attention to
the stature of Ansel Adams as this list has this week... but let me
suggest you check the disjunction-- between what I said and what your mind
said I said, and look deep into your heart & say why.
As for "inflamatory," my dears I am simply dumbfounded. I had the notion
that "alt" photographers are free spirits who can take a bit of
disagreement, even iconoclasm, in stride.... in fact relish it, whether or
not they themselves subscribe to the more conventional view. Well, au
contraire it seems. Folks rose up like a bunch of scalded cats, quite
worked themselves into a lather (to mix metaphors). Forced orthodoxy?
Squelch of independence? Group think?
Tsk tsk.
J.
> 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 ofI 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