Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/01/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] IMGs: Exploitation?
From: jbm at jbm.org (Jeff Moore)
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:54:45 -0500
References: <1AF19668-19CA-4E33-B00D-4F6C62C5AD3D@mac.com> <AANLkTi=GaPvZ0JgsCVr-EwZZWSv1f2bDdgmqDgZbyRq-@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTincfXkMJShD1xHxiY6xRsCvTVc9BnwgxtqZNVkN@mail.gmail.com>
 
2011-01-17-18:24:14 leo wesson:
> just curious, I know it's an old argument, but do you think jock sturges is
> exploitative or art?

The work of Sturges's which I've seen has not felt exploitative or
leering or icky to me.  His portraits seem to have a respect for and
connection with the individuality of the subjects - as people, not
just as decorative husks of skin.

Now, I'm not sure I unquestioningly accept your binary of either "art"
or "exploitative".  I don't see why there couldn't be work which is
art *and* exploitative.  I just don't think I'd enjoy looking at it.

 -Jeff
In reply to: Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] IMGs: Exploitation?)
Message from images at comporium.net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] IMGs: Exploitation?)
Message from leowesson at gmail.com (leo wesson) ([Leica] IMGs: Exploitation?)