From: Darryl Baird (dbaird@umflint.edu)
Date: 10/06/03-04:31:36 PM Z
Folks, we've been hijacked by a very old and tired argument. Instead of
adding to this waste of bandwidth, I'll have my two cents worth in just
two words -- Jeff Wall.
let's get back to helping Shannon look at the roots of WHY we're
interested in neo-something-or-other.
Darryl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Niranjan Patel wrote:
>Pam:
>
>I agree with you. I do not understand why photographs have to be
>"truthful." Is any art truthful? What is the "truth" in art? The
>original scene as is seen by the eye or the interpretation from the mind of
>the photographer? As a matter of fact, is not the Black and White
>Photography itself the first step in filtering the "true" colored world
>into gray scale to highlight that which is not visible in reality? If it
>takes photoshop to realise your vision, then so be it. I think the final
>image, its meaning, context and the effect on people who view it should be
>the final judge of art.
>
>Niranjan.
>
>Disclaimer: I am no "artist" and I like to do the so-called straight
>photography, having just barely began to use Photoshop.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Pam Niedermayer" <pam@pinehill.com>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:16 PM
>Subject: Re: neo-Pictorialism
>
>
>
>
>>Certainly, Photoshop makes manipulation much easier; but I fail to see
>>why anyone even says anything about "lying". Such manipulation in almost
>>all cases, excepting those with financial gain and/or those trying to
>>avoid prison sentences, is about realizing a vision, whether that vision
>>exists in reality or not. The very fact of taking a photograph is one of
>>selecting the view at hand and rejecting all others, so every photograph
>>is very subjective. Even Weegee selected some shots and rejected others,
>>thus putting his mark on what he and his viewers considered important.
>>And then there's burning and dodging.
>>
>>Pam
>>
>>shannon stoney wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>I think the thing about photoshop is that it makes "lying," as Clay
>>>put it, SO much easier. Jerry Uelsmann is a master of the manipulated
>>>image, but he has been at it for thirty years. Any fool can learn to
>>>"lie" with photoshop in an hour or so, and lie very convincingly in a
>>>few days.
>>>
>>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST