No - you need some way of discussing the differences between photography and
other forms of art. The context and difference in practice is very important.
But it never justifies or excuses ordinary photographs.
Frankly, I'm not too sure what you wash hogs with around your way but if you
are discussing the washing of hogs, you had better be talking hogwash or you
run the risk of being labelled ignorant and irrelevant.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.soultheft.com
Author/Publisher:
The SLR Compendium:
revised edition -
http://blur.by/19Hb8or
The TLR Compendium
http://blur.by/1eDpqN7
On 02/04/2014, at 7:28 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> If you read the artistic justifications for his work, it gives some insight
>> into the thinking of the art community. It discusses the depiction of a
>> social context and so suggests that some of the art in photography is in its
>> immediacy and intrusiveness. I think the same criteria might be applied to
>> Goldin - but while Clark is generally well shot and printed and extremely
>> confrontational, Goldin is just...dull.
>
> "Social context"
>
> yadda yadda
>
> Still just a bunch of hogwash.
>
> AG Cretan Schnozz
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|