Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] E******* WAS sherman
From: Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:10:10 +0100
References: <B65D10C3.20A%john@pinkheadedbug.com>

I saw an extensive exhibition of Eggleston's stuff in Denmark last
winter--mostly various banalities from American suburbs, with strange
compositions and tilted horizons. I admit to being less familiar with
Sherman's
work but I did see several of her prints at another exhibit in Denmark
this
summer (part of a group show called "Veronica's Revenge" or something
like
that). Huge prints of what appeared to be vomit on the ground.

Don't get me wrong. I realize that many of the artists whom we consider
to be classics today were ridiculed and misunderstood in their own time.
I make an honest effort to see and understand modern art, including art
photography. I even subscribe to Katalog, a Danish art photography
magazine published in English. But I just don't get the meaning of
Eggleston and Sherman. Maybe I am just too dense...

Nathan

Johnny Deadman wrote:

> Fair enough, but that surprises me about the technique thing. Have you ever
> seen Sherman or Eggleston's prints? Both of them are technically quite
> astounding. Eggleston's in particular because of his use of the dye transfer
> technique. Quite likely to fry your eyeballs.
> --
> Johnny Deadman
>
> http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

- --
Nathan Wajsman
Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland

e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch

General photo site: http://belgiangator.tripod.com/
Belgium photo site: http://members.xoom.com/wajsman/
Motorcycle site: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1704/

In reply to: Message from Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com> (Re: [Leica] E******* WAS sherman)