> 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.
My beef is with the usage of "social context" or even "social
conscience" as a means of justifying to our elitist selves our
fine-tuned and skillfully honed snobbery which justifies us to being
the gate-keepers of the art world. No different than that idiotic news
picture of the year or some such schlock, of somebody sleeping on the
grass somewhere in South Africa. Without the "social
context/conscience", as well as a carefully worded blurb, the image
was a tosser in every regard. Even WITH the carefully worded blurb, it
is still a tosser. It says absolutely nothing. Yet, the elites of the
world look at this utter cr*p and find some hidden meaning in it that
only they can understand. On a positive note, at least National
Geographic doesn't waste ink on it.
> 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.
Ethanol. It keeps them happy.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|