Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/13

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] suprises and disappointment
From: "Mārtiņš Zelmenis" <martin@lrpv.lv>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 09:23:08 +0200

Guy - you are right -

but the _missing link_ are the supposedly _arty_ photos themselves. So it is
both difficult - and useless - to discuss some person's work that's not seen
by anybody! It may well be that the chap that took pictures indoors with the
lens set to infinity just wasated the film - but then maybe he knew what he
was doing? And in such a case the material - and only the material itself -
would be proof to his words. (I am dead serious stating this, and no _art
talk_ can fool me into accepting empty statements on their face value. And I
presume that's the case with most other people on this list.)

Of course, you won't find many people who'd didmiss photo art that was
created early the previous century. (Coburn is art, Atget is art - etc.,
etc. - and it remains an open question if it's _age of the photos_ only that
makes them so good.) And in the meantime sooooo much crap is being presented
as art today - just because we know we have to be tolerant towards the so
called _self expression_ - another splendid case of the tail wagging the
dog. (Not only overly-academic art criticism out there, but
overly-academic-art itself, modelled after some theory that the author
himself/herself doesn't believe in - in the least.)

Martin


>>Speaking about your work is very important in the art world.
>
>It's a disease. They take very literally the old adage that a picture is
>worth a thousand
>words. Usually the artistic merit is inversely proportional to the amount
>of words used
>to describe it. Try reading modern art criticism. I gave up after I
>misplaced my secret
>decoder ring.
>Robert

>Robert, you said it better than I ever could have....the "criticism" you
>describe
>is more university-sponsored pseudo-intellectual PC speak....Jeezus, I
never
>took Orwell literally 'til the 90s.......
>Best to U and URS,
>Walt


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

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