Ender100@aol.com
Date: 10/07/03-01:19:24 AM Z
Kate,
Here is what is probably a very oversimplified view of the whole thing. You
do what work you do based on what is in your heart, mind, and spirit to the
extent your mastery of the craft and your creative ability allows you—involving
the relevant subjects that fall within the range of your mobility and your
camera lens.
Then, later, after you are dead, should someone notice your work, be they a
critic or writer, to satisfy their need for order, they place you in a category
or box with a label on it—like maybe the post-neo-pictorealist
photographisterical movement. Then they go about describing all sorts of obvious symbolism
in each of your images and motivations on your part at the time of clicking
the shutter to include those meanings in the image so that you are proven
obviously to be a post-neo-pictorealist photographisterical photographer type
person.
You can call me anything you want. Just don't call me after 2:00 AM.
;)
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 10/6/03 8:58:43 PM, kateb@paradise.net.nz writes:
> The only thing I've got against the tag of "neo-pictorialism" is the faint
> odour of disapproval that wafts to me from "pictorialism". Being a product
> of the postwar generation, when pictorialism was a no-no and we were to
> stick severely to "realism", even through abstraction, neo-expressionism and
> Malevich. Seems like we've finally caught on to what the painting world has
> known for over a century - art is NOT about truth!!! It's about ART - and
> the word artifice is rooted in the wrord ART so........is the Sistine
> ceiling a lie??? Or an artifice??? Does anybody care??
> And what about thoses peppers? Were they supposed to be read as
> vegetables????? They may have been as sharp and real as all hell but they
> were at the very least another sort of artifice in themselves.........
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST