On 02/04/11 17:04, bob catchpole wrote: > On 02/04/11 14:01, Rob Myers wrote: > >>(Documentary photography) is also, as any judge can see, simply a > mechanical >>reproduction of other people's property to the extent that it >>competently reproduces a recognizable image of it. > > So there!... Diane Arbus, Bill Brandt, August Sander, Josef Koudelka, > Dorothea Lange et al
I then wrote: > If we apply the same standard to documentary photography that we are > being asked to apply to other art, not only is it not art but it > should be seized and destroyed and its subjects or their descendants > compensated by the photographer or their estate. > > This may seem ridiculous, but that's only because it is. > > Both in the case of documentary photographers and in the case of > Prince. My point is that I do not think we should treat either documentary photographers or appropriation artists in this way, and that thinking about how documentary photographers would fare under the same standards as Prince is a good way of seeing why doing so is absurd. - Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
