hi eddie
you know where i stand on this
I think "photography" is a big tent and accommodates whatever photographers do.
I think "photography" is a big tent and accommodates whatever photographers do. And most do a number of processes.
Being anal about whether it atomically adheres to yesteryears methods is pointless. If you feel it needs a prefix, then add one.
But things evolve.
And one would hope people can too.
So then I can't let the obvious begged question pass...
Does that tent include sufficient space to allow those who are "...anal about whether it atomically adheres to yesteryears methods..." to also comfortably stand inside?
Jus' askin'...
Because if it does, then by definition that particularly pejorative "anal" approach wouldn't be any more "pointless" than any of the other approaches, right? And if it doesn't, then perhaps that photographic evolution of which you speak is still a work-in-progress for those individuals who still believe it doesn't.
Ken
But that's why old people need to die off. Because once an old person ceases to become a teacher and mentor and instead becomes a grumpy obstructionist, then their wailing just becomes noise.
Need to die off??
Hmm...
The bad news is that it sounds like we are still very much that photographic-mindset evolutionary work-in-progress.
The good news is that xenophobia is a learned trait that can be unlearned as well. And with sufficient mindset evolution we can all become accepting of everyone's approaches to making photographs. Even approaches which may seem threatening to us.
It is a big tent.
Ken
I believe I said that.
And I held up the mirror.
A parrot is not a mirror.
Of course. But that's why old people need to die off.
Because once an old person ceases to become a teacher and mentor and instead becomes a grumpy obstructionist, then their wailing just becomes noise.
And that noise is usually outside screaming at the tent, even though the door is open.
The idea that art is always needs to be progressive in some way was a 20th century obsession. The story is that western art is the result of a series of victories over the Old Guard by young visionaries. The statement that the old need to die off in order for art to progress (toward what, one might ask) is definitely reflective of that.
Yet the recuperation a past aesthetic as a statement against a current state of affairs - the reverse of what you imply - has been part of the art world since forever. Artists have frequently gone to the past to find a basis for expression. Just as a small example, think of the number of great artists and especially musicians who are labelled "neo-classical." In photography, for the past 25 years, there has been an increasing interest in older methods of making photographs - salt printing, platinum, wet plate, and so on. Should these archaic methods and their practitioners die off in order to get out of the way of digital? Furthermore, especially in the 20th century, the new art movements were among the most strident and dogmatic of all, insisting on adherence to strict aesthetic principles.
In a nutshell, the history of western art is not about progress. It is about change, for sure, at least in part, and sometimes these changes came about by the battle between old and new, but that is only part of the picture (pun intended).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?