From: Judy Seigel (email@example.com)
Date: 03/08/02-10:39:40 PM Z
On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Baird, Darryl wrote:
> " Sorry, but there is a difference between a photographer an a
> technician who thinks is a photographer. And there is a really
> between an artist and a Photoshop user. Hence, I don't have to "get
> use to
> it", only technicians do."
> I don't understand the point here. You seem to be positioning yourself
> as an arbitor of art AND photography... setting up rules that divide
> people into classes. History tends to prove this to be quite fruitless
> and foolhardy. Atget, Belloq, H. P. Robinson, and Reijlander come to
> mind as examples of people who were either condemned for their
> un-"photographic" practice or their lack of aesthetic intent.
Exactly... Atget + Atkins & surely down (up?) the alphabet didn't
consider themselves artists at all. Some who were in got cast out, then
maybe in again (JM Cameron, for starters). For laughs read PH Emerson on
the topic (quoted P-F # 3), also Ruskin, Owen Jones, Beaumont Newhall,
Lincoln Kirstein, et al, et al, et al.
If we can judge our own work we should rejoice, & not presume further. (Of
course we so presume every day, but I think by individuals, not whole
> For me, it is very simple... I think (I am a photograher and an
> artist) therefore I am. Let history prove me right or wrong.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST