[Leica] Re: Leica Users digest V26 #102

[Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.net>]

>In a message dated 12/12/03 10:29:59 AM, phong@doan-ltd.com writes:
>
><< Anyway, I think I will give up on this topic on the LUG.
>I tried a few times to have a meaningful discussion on
>how to photographically portray such things as sex, lust,
>temptation, desire, etc. in an artistic way, and failed. >>

Kim wrote:

>I honestly don't know that the LUG proper is the place to have such
>meaningful discussions about photography more than once a blue moon.  It 
>kinda
>interrupts the alcohol and why we should all move to digital discussion.

Well, Kim, I tried. I expressed a strongly-worded opinion that many (NOT 
all) post-60s artist's "art" is more about sensationalism and 
self-promotion than anything else.  I backed up my assertion with some 
examples from art and music history that showed how post-60s art has built 
on attitudes established in the Romantic era and the post World War I 
breakdown of many artistic conventions (and Kit correctly identified the 
Dadaists as the poster children for the leading edge of that wave).  I 
asserted that these attitudes had taken a quantum leap in the post-60s era, 
in part due to the modern cult of celebrity and marketing methods.

I concluded with:

>The revolutionaries of the early-mid 20th century knew what they were
>rebelling against.  I'm not sure many post-1960s artists do.  It is one
>thing (and, I think a good thing) to say that content dictates form.  It is
>quite another to say that lack of form dictates content.  It is a good
>thing to do something new and different.  It is quite another to do
>something completely incoherent, guided only by libido, ego and
>self-indulgence, and claim that anyone who doesn't like it is an ignorant
>Phillistine.

You in turn quoted my post and responded angrily.  You attacked the LUG in 
general as being reactionary. You implied that I was narrow-minded.  Your 
response sounded as if I'd attacked you and your work personally.  Which I 
had not.  Nor had I said that libido was not a valid motivation for art, or 
that ego and self-indulgence were not present in art of all ages.  I simply 
meant that such things were a few of many starting points for what I 
regarded as good art, and art that doesn't go beyond those starting points 
is usually bad art, or not art at all.  Forgive me if I didn't state it 
clearly enough.  Let me try again.  I believe (as others have stated) that 
to be good or great art, it has to:

1. Demonstrate mastery of the materials.
2. Perhaps show some transcendence of them.
3. Communicate something, perhaps an idea, perhaps a feeling, perhaps both.
4. Have some universality that speaks beyond the artist's time, place, or 
immediate social circle.

A number of people made intelligent comments in response to my post. But 
after your angry missive, there seemed little point in continuing.  I 
deliberately refrained from responding. I felt I'd pretty much stated my 
case, and didn't wish to get into a flamefest.  It also sounded like you 
were responding to something from your own experience, rather that what I 
or the others had actually said.

But now you imply that this incident shows that the LUG is no place for a 
serious discussion of photography, because we're too busy discussing scotch 
and whether to switch to digital. Huh? Read your own post.  In my opinion, 
*it* was what squelched the discussion.
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v26/msg03771.html

- --Peter

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