From: shannon stoney (sstoney@pdq.net)
Date: 10/05/03-09:42:44 AM Z
Sandy wrote:
>
>Why has this taken place? Well, from my perspective much of it is
>due to a kind of academic formalism that has resulted from the
>teaching of photography at the college and university levels.
>Academic formalism evolved from an attitude that places minimal
>value on the thing being photographed (from whence the term "nominal
>subject matter") and maximum importance on the freedom of the
>photographer to make maximum use of the possibilities of the media,
>thus the recuperation of historical printing processes and the
>return to antiquated art strategies (surrealism, etc.)
That's interesting. Do you see neo-Pictorialism, then, as a kind of
modernism? I associate formalism with modernism, which is the reason
I ask. It would be ironic if Pictorialism, which was once seen as
the opposite of photographic modernism in the early 20th century,
turned out to be its logical extension in the late 20th century.
--shannon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST