>
>This is a letter from the New York TImes Book Review. Do you agree that
>you can create art only when it's your intention to do so?
>
>To the Editor:
>
>I read with interest Deborah Solomon’s
>review<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/books/review/short-nights-of-the-shadow-catcher-by-timothy-egan.html>
>of
>“Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher: The Epic Life and Immortal Photographs
>of Edward Curtis,” by Timothy Egan (Oct. 28). Solomon is a talented
>biographer — I thoroughly enjoyed “Utopia Parkway” — but she completely
>missed the point of Curtis’s life when she referred to him as a great
>artist. Though galleries try to promote Curtis’s work as art, it’s really
>more ethnographic photography. While Curtis obviously had a strong
>aesthetic sensibility, the intention behind his work was documentation of a
>vanishing race. You can create art only when it’s your intention to do so.
>
Egan was here a couple of weeks ago to promote this book, and I got my
copy signed. I disagree with the "art can only be intentional" remark. Many
chance landscape, flower, and insect photos jump the boundary between
documentation and art when swomething unusual or unintentional is captured.
One that comes to mind is a photo of Mount McKinley (aka Denali) with a lake in
the foreground. Wha turned it into art was the presence of a large moose in
the foreground.
Speaking of "large moose", are there any small ones?
Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|