From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/13/03-11:38:04 AM Z
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Sandy King wrote:
> >This is one of the issues that I"m struggling with, in writing about
> >Pictorialism. Why was so much of it so...sentimental, for lack of a
> >better word?
All art including photography is part of its culture. The reason we find
some of those photographs cloyingly sentimental is the ZEITGEIST, ours vs.
theirs. (Zeitgeist translates literally as "taste of the time.")
The taste of victorianism was sentiment. The taste of today is irony. I
remember our 10th grade English teacher declaring that it was impossible
to read about the death of Little Nell without laughing. That was long
ago of course, but irony had set in, perhaps spearheaded by English
teachers tired of Dickens.
The task of art history is separating art from the taste with which it was
received. This is done for ALL art, near and far. We learn that Rembrandt
at the time of his death was dismissed as a has-been, and someone whose
name I can't remember was star of the hour.
For a more recent example, see the ridicule heaped on Julia Margaret
Cameron by our own arbiters of taste ,most particularly Gernsheim, but
until about 15 minutes ago. The change in reception of hand coloring, gum
printing, William Mortensen, & so forth is dramatic, another great joke in
fact. Because the "change" is always according to OUR taste, and will
certainly change again.
Which is why publishers get to publish more and more history of art books.
An industry in fact.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:18 AM Z CST