Fernando wrote: > To me it doesn't have to do with "instant" accessibility, it has to do > with the fact that a lot of this type of work doesn't speak for > itself, you can stare at some of these photos for 100 years, and you > won't get it unless you know where the artist is coming from, or that > the artist is expressing a screaming message of rage because he/she > was raped at the age of 6. It's a matter of taste, I don't have the > time or the will to learn the artist biography, some people do, and > that's OK. My limit is that I can even look at a gallery of photos if > as a whole, it speaks for itself, I mean, if an intelligent human > being is supposed to understand or feel moved by the work, but let's > face it, there's a lot of BS in art, There certainly is, but you'll also find a lot of inverted snobbery, if that's the right way of putting it. I mean, there are enough people who literally boast about how they dislike pictures or films or music or books or whatever that are acclaimed by the critics, often for no other reason, it seems, than the very fact that the critics like them.
The real truth, as always, lies somewhere in between... > and the common folk can easily > feel left out. Coming back to conceptual photography, to me the > problem is that for being photography, there are way too many words > involved... > > On 8/21/07, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Same here. I tend to think that most art, photography or whatever, >>> should be accessible to the masses. >>> >> It is. Just as particle physics is accessible to the masses. >> >> >>> If I don't get it I'm >>> not going to >>> spend much time with it. >>> >> Then how can it be made 'accessible' to you? If you're not prepared to >> put the effort into getting it, why should the people who made it have >> to make it easy just to suit you? >> >> Why do people expect artists, who have devoted years of their lives to >> understanding their subject and producing whatever it is they produce, >> to be instantly 'accessible', when they don't expect the same from, >> for example, particle physicists? Why should 21st century art be less >> difficult than 21st century physics? >> >> -- >> Bob >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of Scott Loveless >>> Sent: 21 August 2007 20:11 >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Conceptual photography (was - Corner Kick) >>> >>> Fernando wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not a fan of Winogrand, I thought I was, but I found >>>> >>> that I liked some of his shots, probably the more popular >>> ones, the ones that are >>> >>>> easy to read, the other ones, I don't get them, I guess I leave >>>> >> that >> >>>> to knowledgeable guys, who have the time and dedication to study >>>> >> an >> >>>> artist's body of work, I'm lazy and impatient, I don't get >>>> >>> conceptual >>> >>>> photography for the same reason. >>>> >>> Same here. I tend to think that most art, photography or whatever, >>> should be accessible to the masses. If I don't get it I'm >>> not going to >>> spend much time with it. I suppose that if I was an art student or >>> >> a >> >>> magazine editor I might be more critical. >>> >>>> Speaking of this shot, when I saw it for the >>>> first time, I just thought, "I like it" didn't really stop to >>>> >> think >> >>>> why, >>>> >>>> >>> Me, too. I do sometimes put some thought into a photograph >>> that I like, >>> but more often than not I don't. >>> >>> -- >>> Scott Loveless >>> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
