Re: [Leica] HCB Portaits

["Paul Klingaman" <pklingaman@hotmail.com>]

Ok Chandos, that's hilarious!!  You win.

I think you're right about spelling and punctuation, but you are talking 
about someone's last name...a bit of a different story.  One's status of 
"professional" might not mean much to you, but to me it means a whole lot.  
Being a professional entails a dedication to photography far beyond most 
"hobbyists"(I hate that term) or amateurs.  These people depend on what they 
do to put food on the table...quite a gutsy move, if you ask me.  Their 
notariaty is centered upon their names, and as such, I think it important to 
spell them correctly.  I'm not suggesting that proof-reading and spell 
checking messages is necessary on the list, just that we should be a little 
more careful about referencing individuals as we critique their work.  By 
the way, I am not a professional.  However, I have a tremendous respect for 
not only their technical competence, but also their determination in doing 
what they love to make a living.

Good luck with the Oatmeal and Jello.

- -Paul

>From: Chandos Michael Brown <cmbrow@mail.wm.edu>
>Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] HCB Portaits
>Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:51:23 -0400
>
>One of the oldest conventions of net-speak of which I am aware (and I first
>logged on from the University of Illinois in 1973) is that typos, spelling,
>and punctuation were off-bounds for public censure, but In fairness to
>Leibovitz, I stand corrected.  I should have proof-read the message.
>
>I've never looked at a single of her photographs over the years (though
>I've never particularly sought them out) that didn't strike me as facile
>and synthetically droll--rather like the "brat-pack" fiction that emerged
>from New York during the Reagan era, the trendy authors of which she
>documented for glossy gossip rags. I admire the technical competence of the
>work, but that's it.
>
>Henry Adams noted in his great history of the early republic one of its
>most extraordinary transformations (paraphrasing here, but I'll supply a
>page reference if you wish):  "In 1776, Americans debated the rights of
>men.  In 1800, they haggled over the price of cotton."
>
>I should say that the line from Arbus to Leibovitz says as much about our
>own time as Adams' apercu does of the period he seeks to describe.
>
>I'd say more, but I'm busy filling the tub with oatmeal so that I can burn
>a few rolls on a portrait subject this afternoon.  The weather's made the
>mudbath stuff easy over the past few days, but it's tough to get anything
>*new* given all the TV coverage of the flood victims.  I've been thinking
>about doing a series on my colleagues, hanging upside down from monkey
>bars, but they haven't been very cooperative so far.  I guess that ever
>since the lime-jello debacle, my reputation's been in trouble.  I *thought*
>the stuff would wash out a lot easier than it does.  Boy, am I glad I only
>do this stuff as a *hobby.*
>
>I'm not sure that one's status as a "professional" ought mean much to
>anyone except the IRS.  Certainly in and of itself it earns no respect from 
>me.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Chandos
>
>
>
>At 03:52 PM 9/30/1999 +0000, you wrote:
>>It's Leibovitz.  If you're going to trash the woman's work, at least get
>>her name right.  You might try looking at some of her early work, and
>>perhaps add an addendum to your post saying that *some* of her work is
>>"vacuous sterility."  I'm not a huge fan of her newer work either, but I
>>think she's earned the respect as a professional to be referenced 
>>correctly.
>>
>>-Paul Klingaman
>
>
>
>Chandos Michael Brown
>Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies
>College of William and Mary
>
>http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com