Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Well, JD/JB, the view I'm espousing probably is "PJ." On the other hand,
substitute "meaning," etc., for "message." Without commenting on the work of
any particularly photographer, I guess my basic point is that I get fed up
with photographers, or any artists, who produce art for public consumption
that only they understand. That's fine if their work is only produced for
their own edification or amusement. But if it's meant for others, it must be
understandable by others.
Whatever...as the kids would say... :-)
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of John
Brownlow
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 8:01 AM
To: LUG
Subject: Re: [Leica] Eggleston: art photography
on 15/2/00 4:28 pm, B. D. Colen at bdcolen@earthlink.net wrote:
> The bottom line is that the photo is the photo. Either it conveys the
> message, or it fails.
But what's the message? That sounds like PJ to me. A meditation is not a
message, nor is a conundrum, or a contradiction, and yet a photo can be all
three.
I've been trying to get away from messages in my own work...which is not the
same as getting away from meaning.
Eggleston's work in particular has meaning for me, but no distinguishable
message.
Robert Adams work is at its best when he's not 'on message' as we say in UK
politics. The Denver stuff for me sometimes tips over into rhetoric.
Bringing this back on topic, on the hasselblad site there's a picture of
Eggleston using a leica. How about that??
- --
John Brownlow
photos: http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
music: http://www.jukebox.demon.co.uk