RE: [Leica] #$@%$^ art photographers

["Phong" <phong@doan-ltd.com>]

> No thanks.  Besides, I don't think today's corporate CEO is the 
> equivalent of Lorenzo the Magnificent.  Perhaps of the Borgias 
> or the Medicis, but minus the patronage.  These guys don't build 
> monuments to their  greatness.  They just stash the cash offshore.

Then, as now, it was about their egos.  Building monuments
was the best way to get their names around. (as an aside,
Lorenzo was a Medici, no ?)

Anyway, about art ...

> It is quite another to do something completely incoherent, guided 
> only by libido, ego and  self-indulgence, and claim that anyone who 
> doesn't like it is an ignorant Phillistine.

Art is an expression of our feelings, among other things.  The only 
thing I ask is that such expression be genuine (Nan Goldin, e.g.). 
If such feelings is about our libido, ego, self-indulgence, etc. 
should there be no place for them in art ?  Should art be only 
about "good", acceptable feelings ?  And I expect much of art,
genuine art, to be incoherent, sometimes even incomprehensible.

There is art, and there is the business of art.  If the public is
stupid enough to pay for the art, don't blame only the artist.  
And I don't think artists would treat you as ignorant Philistine 
just because you don't like their art.  Just don't put down something 
you don't understand.  You put them down, or they think you might put
them down, and they'll treat you as ignorant Philistine.

In any case, I am always suspect of successful professional artists,
going back to da Vinci.   I can respect and admire their talent,
but their art, as an genuine expression, is suspect.   Whose art 
is it anyway ?  But hey, one has to make a living, a good one if 
possible. 

Just my narrow view on art,

- - Phong

Whose art is it anyway ?  Of course, at some point, the viewer
assumes the work of art as an expression of his or her feelings too.


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html