Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chris I once saw a film of Henri working the streets......He was about as tactful as a one-legged-Yankee at an ass kicking contest. There are plenty of good shooters making art with their chosen medium, even if it is Fujichrome. As far as the definition of art being changed? When has that not been true? The most trivializing thing happening to art isn't simply relegated to photography. Look at what passes for wall decor in most department stores. Even so, I recently bought a framed b&w print at Kohl's which now hangs on in my office. The photographer who made it might be a mass-market type but he likes the work, and it shows. To me, the only certainty about art is reasonably simply. One either does art or talks about it. Walt Chris Saganich wrote: > Daniel, > > When I read your post I had to think of why I'm in the same camp and > I'm sorry to report I have something to say about it. For me color > counters my desire to see photography as art. HCB states, '[B&W] is > more tactful, more decorous...less voyeuristic and less sentimental or > crudely lifelike...[then color]' I'm not sure how well that defines > art other then seeing color as being reserved for the tradition of > painting and not photography. Nevertheless I'm not all that convinced > photography is Art despite its acceptance in museums and by > collectors. It seems photography being called an Art department has > more to do with the modernists changing the definition of art then the > photography itself, (I suppose then that the definition could shift > back excluding photography as art). Although I like to think of > myself as some kind of an artist following in some kind of tradition, > it is increasingly difficult to define what that tradition is, if it > exists, or if it ever existed. The closing gap between Weston and > Eggleston, between Eggleston and cell phone images. The > interchangeability of documentation and advertising. All suggests > there was never a tradition in the first place. How could there have > been if photography is so easily trivialized? If there is a tradition > associated with photography it seems likely to be B&W. So next time > your at a cocktail party and asked why you only shoot B&W, say "I > resist the temptation of color because I like the idea of photography > being art and don't like to see the art of photography trivialized." > That will keep them off your back for a while. > Chris > > > At 05:21 AM 10/4/2006, you wrote: > >> I don't take much color and I really don't know why, other than the >> explanation that I am lazy and just keep doing things the way I >> always have. I don't know if I take b/w for its own intrinsic >> qualities, or if I do it because I couldn't afford color as a kid ... >> and never grew up. >> >> http://www.dlridings.se/gallery/v/shoebox/2006v39/DSC_7582.jpg.html >> >> the same: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/fwxyv >> >> Daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >