2009/6/5 Joseph McAllister <pentax...@mac.com>: > From todays New York Times: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/arts/design/04abroad.html?th&emc=th > > To see something is to face the prospect of becoming inured to it, even if > only slightly. Photographs reveal horrors to which they also accustom > viewers.
To me, it seems the article concludes that an exhibition with some of the photos that raised thousands of debates is flawed because of "inurement". I assume the writer means his own inurement, that controversies over whether photography oversteps the civil contract is only a subject of his phlegmatic disinterest. This is reflected also in his use of derogatory terms for the exhibition such as "a mess". So what's his message? That such an exhibition is a waste of time and space? That we can draw no wisdom or see no patterns from the debates of the past? I sincerely hope the writer's intention is ironic, to raise the issue as another debate. Otherwise I find the article to be, pardon the expression, utter crap. Sincerely, Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
