I think you took the wrong slant on his comments. I've looked carefully at a lot of "fine-art" prints and quite frankly I believe in what he postulated in that statement. Smug? How about truth telling? Vacuous? My thesaurus says, "characterized by a lack of substance, thought or intellectual content." Oh, please! In whose most humble opinion? Galen Rowell was more of a photographer, with better developed skills and a capable sense of judgement of what a photographic print should be, than most of us could _ever_ hope to attain, so I would venture that his opinions carry substantial weight. They certainly do in my eyes...
keith whaley Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > Herb Chong wrote: > > > The Meaning of It All: Reflections on Fine Art Images by Dead Guys (and > > Gals) > > > > Herb Chong > > > > "Fine-art photographic prints are one of the last bastions of resistance. > > Black-and-whites by dead guys with darkrooms are indeed the ultimate > > limited edition. That they command the highest prices has more to do with > > scarcity than image quality." Galen Rowell - Outdoor Photographer, June, > > 1999. > > Geez - and I thought I liked Galen Rowell. What a smug, vacuous statement. > Very sad. > > annsan
