Re: You Say Krappy, I Say Dead

From: Charlie Goodwin ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/10/05-03:22:35 PM Z
Message-id: <200501102122.j0ALMaQH007532@outbound2.mail.tds.net>

I'm not sure that they necessarily have technology as their nominal subject Regardless, I see the search for technical excellence best pursued as a means, not an end. I have the same feeling when I look at copies of Fine Homebuilding Magazine - a great magazine by the way - where I often come across expertly crafted but pointless schmorgesbords of woodworking styles all mashed together in an unfortunate room. Sure the carpenter is a great carpenter, but a rotten designer.

Back to photography. Sure, some modes of photography demand flawless technique, but technique seems to be the holy grail. It shouldn't be. Worthwhile works are the goal. Sometimes, technique is a necessary stop on the path to the goal.

C

> Is it perhaps that overtly technical works have technology as their
> subject, and, because of that, have the quality of "deadening preciousness"?

> >* Yes, some work is technically exacting - dye transfers, many alternative
> >processes...much photography. I'm not arguing with that. But much
> >artistic endeavor is technically perfect, and perfectly dead.
Received on Mon Jan 10 15:22:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:07 AM Z CST