Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/07/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm not suggesting that Jim = Dianne. They are obviously distinctly different individuals working at different times in history. Yet they both stand before unusual humans and document them, in their environments, with cameras. There the similarity may end. I certainly appreciate Jim's underlying sense of wonder as well as humor. I also find a sense of wonder in Arbus' work. And yes both very different than Tress's staging. I don't need to "like" or find personal "appeal" in a photographer's work in order to appreciate the work's place in the history of the medium. a note off the iPad, George On Jul 12, 2014, at 8:56 PM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree. Jim has a streak of humour in his photographs, which is > the underlying emotion in his work. Arbus was into weirdness for the > sake of shock value. She is not a photographer whose work appeals to > me at all. Neither does Arthur Tress - too artificial and staged for > shock value as well. YMMV, of course.