From: Jack Fulton (email@example.com)
Date: 09/29/00-12:30:31 PM Z
Yes, yes, and again I say yes.
Flowers of the mind, yes.
> I appreciate the thought and the knowledge of art history that Rod brings to
> the question and a dutiful part of me thinks this is good topic for
> discussion; but another part of me isn't even interested in trying to say
> something that is bound to exclude many other wonderful ways in which
> photography functions which may or may not be as art.
> One of the first books I bought for myself was The Family of Man that was
> sold in a drugstore by my bus stop. For a twelve-year-old om Washington,
> DC,these photographs were a window on the world, not 'art'. People take so
> many different things from photographs according to temperament, need,
> background, stage in life.
> And I really don't care whether others consider what I produce to be art, or
> not, since I have come to it step by step and it is what has emerged like a
> tree bearing fruit. We don't criticize trees for doing what they do or birds
> for singing the songs they sing. People seem the same way to me. To
> understand is to forgive any expression of the individual although we may
> choose to ignore or exclude 99% of what passes before us and embrace the
> remaining 1% ‹ but that is one's personal taste, not something that can be
> put down as principles or a sort of constitution.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT