[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Chuck Close making daquerreotypes
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, ken wrote:
> Some one , please tell him to stop!
> I figures, many people work in the background keeping something alive and
> doing research on how to do it today with the EPA and some one famous tries
> it and OH JOY an old process is finally revived!!
Ken, you took the words practically out of my mouth. A friend called today
to tell me about that article in Times (which I'd read, also was on the
history list in case I hadn't). His attitude was halleluliah, inform the
masses. My attitude was phooey on the masses, they'll ruin it. And Lyle
Rexer should have known, if he didn't, that, even aside from Jerry
Spagnoli, others have been doing dags & dag workshops for years -- and not
only did he fail to mention Post-Factory Issue #4 article on dag (gross
oversight), he also didn't mention Ken Nelson & others giving workshops
these several years and, maybe the Daguerrean Society?
Sort of like David Hockney practically credited with discovering the
camera lucida -- from an article in the New Yorker. Hockney himself did
NOT claim that, but readers of the article, never having heard of Wm Henry
Fox Talbot, et al, assumed.
> From: Larry Watson [mailto:email@example.com]
> Subject: Chuck Close goes "alt"
> ... (are you sitting down Judy)... female nudes.
PLEASE, don't make me tell you this again: civilization depends on ability
to make distinctions. In NO WAY am I opposed to nudes, male or female per
se (tho I admit I don't find them as interesting as some folks seem to).
What I am compelled by love of art, truth and photography to point out is
how sexist the USUAL female nude "art" photography is.
The naked lady in the Close article looked far more interesting in fact
than some of his other recent work -- and hardly a glamor puss, or glamor
pose either, just standing there. It never occurred to me to object to it
qua nude -- which suggests it may actually be art.
So...honi soi qui mal y pense !