----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Chicago
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Doug Brewer wrote
:(regarding Eggleston)
I'm pretty sure Christine had a little epiphany about it too, but I'll
leave
that up to her. Even Mark Roberts allowed, a touch grudgingly, that there
might have been a couple of good photos in there.
I really thought one (Eggleston) was excellent and two others were
very likeable. So I didn't totally dislike his exhbited work, though
those three represent probably 5% of what was displayed.
He just, IMO, seemed a charlatan. Maybe Picasso was too, based on
some elementary school art exhibits I saw hanging in the local mall
today.
It seems to me a question of:
1. Do I like it because it was REALLY a good photograph?
or
2. Do I like it because it brings back fond memories for me, despite
it being a CRAPPY photograph?
If #1, then it was probably a really good photograph.
If #2, then it's because I'm in love with my own memories (nothing
wrong with that) and my emotional response to the image has little to
do with it's artisitic merit.
Does it really matter why we like something and why we don't?
At the end of the game, all that matters is that the image has touched us in
some way.
Nothing else.
<rant>
What I don't understand is the need for pathos, and how often that is tied
to artistic merit.
Why do the important pictures make me want to slash my wrists?
</rant>
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
