Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/07/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George, "Place in History" is determined by the marketing machine behind an artist, is it not, and always has been as far as photography is concerned, as an artistic medium that came of age in the modern era of communications? More reason than most to make up your own mind and not get taken in with the hype. (-: Cheers Jayanand On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, George Lottermoser <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote: > I'm not suggesting that Jim = Dianne. > > They are obviously distinctly different individuals working at different > times in history. > > Yet they both stand before unusual humans > and document them, in their environments, with cameras. > There the similarity may end. > > I certainly appreciate Jim's underlying sense of wonder as well as humor. > I also find a sense of wonder in Arbus' work. > > And yes both very different than Tress's staging. > > I don't need to "like" or find personal "appeal" in a photographer's work > in order to appreciate the work's place in the history of the medium. > > a note off the iPad, George > > On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I disagree. Jim has a streak of humour in his photographs, which is >> the underlying emotion in his work. Arbus was into weirdness for the >> sake of shock value. She is not a photographer whose work appeals to >> me at all. Neither does Arthur Tress - too artificial and staged for >> shock value as well. YMMV, of course. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information