Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Fair enough, Arthur. I agree with you that his photos are disturbing in ways the others' aren't. Mistrust of the artist because his message is too powerful? It seems to me that it would be impossible for someone to produce images of such impact if they were not passionately and honestly connected with their message. If they wew not, I'd think the message would be diluted because the artist's dissembling (at some level) would disturb the coherence of their vision. As far as the second coming goes, I don't think there was a first one, so at least for me JN is spared that added burden. I'm content to know that there is someone out there who can take such uniquely powerful images, and survive the process. Now if he used Leicas, maybe he'd be the second coming. As it is, he can only be Canonized... Paul Chefurka >-----Original Message----- >From: ARTHURWG@aol.com [mailto:ARTHURWG@aol.com] >Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 8:06 PM >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:Nachtwey > > >Paul: I guess I could be projecting. But I just feel there's >something about >Nachtwey's photos that disturb me in ways that I don't get from other >war/disaster photos. That includes Gilles Perez, Don McCullin, > Phillip >Jones-Griffith, Robert Capa and others of similar subject >matter. Maybe it's >the perfect, classical composition and the unbelivably good >printing'; or >just the exquisitely artful style applied to such horror. It >troubles me and >I mistrust it. As for others opinions, most seem to see >Nachtwey as the >second comming of Christ. I guess I prefer to think for myself. Arthur >