Re: [Leica] suprises and disappointment

["Dragi Anevski" <dragia@hotmail.com>]

I agree with this. "I like it" and "I don't like" are not very inclusive as 
statements about works of art. Also sometimes people seem to think that it 
is better not to speak about what you are doing, instead you should just do 
it. For some reason that is considered to be "more right". Maybe we will all 
be more like "true artists", or maybe more like "true photgraphers" or 
better in some other way? I also think that it is very interesting to hear 
what the photographer has to say (in words that is) also.

As an example of when hearing about the ideas behind the photographs might 
change what you think of them: lately I visited the Hasselblad center's 
exhibition of the latest Hasselblad award winner (Hiroshi Sugimoto, 
http://www.hasselbladcenter.se/) in Göteborg Sweden, and walked around and 
was very unimpressed. The most unimpressive pictures were images from the 
inside of movie theaters, and they looked like just empty movie theaters, 
taken with a large format camera, plain boring. Just before leaving I passed 
a small room where a video interview was on with the photographer talking 
about his work. He explained that the theater pictures were done by opening 
the shutter when the movie started and closing it when it had stopped and 
everybody had left the theater, so the exposure was some hours, and people 
moved while the film played so you couldn't see them in the picture, and the 
film screen was washed out and white.

For me that explanation changed completely what the picture was all about. I 
still think it's boring, sort of, but it made me think. And somewhat 
reluctantly, I also think it is interesting now.

An example closer to the "Leica style photography" although very different: 
Capa's picture of the falling soldier, as a symbol of..... An art critic 
could talk for ages about that image, and the symbolism is really what the 
picture is all about. Same thing holds for most of todays contemporary 
documentary photography: many of the images of say Salgado, Cartier-Bresson 
or Nachtway are very "symbolic".


Dragi Anevski


>From: Guy Bennett <gbennett@lainet.com>

>Are you guys saying that there should not be any critical discourse about
>photography or art, or just not the complicated kind?
>
>Should we just stick to: "I like it." "Boy that's neat." "I don't
>understand it." "That's crap." etc.?
>
>Or should we just not talk about it at all?
>
>While there is a lot of uninspired and overly academic art/photography
>criticism out there, there are also well written, thought provoking studies
>of art and photography that we can learn a lot from, if we're willing to
>make the effort to actually read and understand them, and maybe even
>discuss them with other people.
>
>You guys seem to have a "point and shoot" attitude with respect to talking
>about art/photography: the less we have to think and say about it the
>better. Anything requiring study and thought is too intellectual, academic,
>unnecessarily complex, etc.
>
>Believe me, I am no fan of conventional academic prose styles, having
>slogged through years of it in college. As a photographer, however, I'm
>interested in reading what others - both photographers and critics - have
>to say about this activity. If nothing else, it only broadens my
>appreciation and understanding of photography and gives me something to
>think about, even if I disagree with it. To limit myself to the exchange of
>evaluative opinions is, well, too limiting.
>
>Guy
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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