From: Darryl Baird (dbaird@umflint.edu)
Date: 09/21/03-08:54:34 PM Z
I don't think your "viewpoint" is so shallow. I've come to say to my
classes that photography allows us to stare with impunity. The
discomfort of a stare (from both perspectives) is lightened, but not
removed with a print in lieu of a person. To bring this full circle
(back to Arbus [and Klein and Frank]), we'd much prefer the photograph
usually to the reality if there is something disturbing or scary before
our eyes.
Darryl
kateb@paradise.net.nz wrote:
>Quoting Darryl Baird <dbaird@umflint.edu>:
>
>
>
>>As a little contrast -- I also drove a great deal of distance to hear
>>Andres Serrano and found him completely lacking as a human. He seemed
>>utterly comfortable with shock and the allure of big bucks. > Darryl
>>
>>
>>
>>How interesting - I was looking at some of Serrano's work alongside Witkin's
>>
>>
>this morning and I'm sure the lack of feeling is evident in his work. What you
>say about Witkin is borne out by all the literature I've seen - he IS a
>humanist, also religious and concerned deeply with "difference" in humanity. I
>can understand, though, how people find his images difficult to get alongside.
>With my class last week, the reaction was shock and disgust, and I feel this
>too. Another aspect I think interesting is that the normal reaction to
>difference is to stare, and the normal social inhibition is NOT to stare.
>Witkin gives a chance to really look at difference without causing offence.
>This may sounds shallow but I think is at least a little valid.
>
>Kate
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST