Re: And how sharp I am was/Re: Temperaprint & Gum

From: Pam Niedermayer ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 02/01/04-10:58:32 AM Z
Message-id: <>

I think Judy and you may have been saying the same thing. She's just
saying there are alternatives to an obsession with sharpness, you're now
qualifying your statement on the importance of sharpness. As to Cindy
Sherman, I saw a show of her first work in NYC 20+ years ago,
immediately noted that it was a cinematic sensibility, which was
interesting, but nothing more. What is she doing now?


Sandy King wrote:

> Pam wrote:
>> For anyone to say that everyone must do as they do to be branded
>> with the art label is absurd.
>> Pam
> Did someone say that during this exchange? If so I sure missed it.
> What I have said is that there are types of photography where
> sharpness itself is highly valued, as are a number of other formal
> values. Straight photography, as described by Strand, would be one
> these types of photography. Industrial and/or scientific work would be
> others.
> Other kinds of work start with different premises and have different
> objectives. Pinhole photography, gum bichromate, work with Holga
> cameras, conceptual photography, etc. I certainly would not say that
> these approaches are any less valid than straight photography, though
> I doubt that any of use would embrace all of them. How many on this
> list, for example, appreciate the work of Cindy Sherman?
> It appears to me that the only person who has tried to narrow the
> range of acceptable work is Judy, through her suggestion that those
> who are interested in sharpness and/or archival issues lack confidence
> in their work. Which implies that only those who avoid sharpness and
> concern with archival issues have any right to consider themselves
> confident artists.
> Sandy
> ...
Received on Sun Feb 1 10:58:36 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:07 AM Z CST