Has anyone read the Eggleston review in the New Yorker [Archive]

nightfly

11-12-2008, 05:24

I haven't read the review but I thought that's just par for the course for the New Yorker. I'm definitely in their demographic, liberal, "intellectual" New Yorker but I find a lot of the work in there, besides the investigative type of Seymour Hersh stories, pretty pretentious. And this is coming form someone who reads the New York Review of Books.

There was a great Family Guy where Brian gets a job at the New Yorker and he asks where the bathroom is and discovers that there are no toilets and when he inquires the person in charge says "This is the New Yorker we don't have anuses"

dave lackey

11-12-2008, 06:01

I'm not even sure what an "intellectual" is...:angel:

I enjoyed reading the article because I know little of Eggleston. But, it did smack me in the face when I read about being born rich in Memphis with all the advantages.

Outside of that, and plowing through the language, I enjoyed the article.

Where is the manure?:confused:

simonSE15

11-12-2008, 06:14

a ridiculous exercise is name-dropping. Nan Goldin, Catrier-Bresson, Roland Barthes. is there anyone who didnt get a metion?

peter_n

11-12-2008, 06:45

I have a subscription but often tend to "speed-read" it. It can be a bit much sometimes I agree.

dave lackey

11-12-2008, 08:35

I have a subscription but often tend to "speed-read" it. It can be a bit much sometimes I agree.

Ha! I don't have a subscription because I can speed-read that rag whilst at the dentist's office.

I dunno, why is it that some writers can't just write at the level of the "average" reader? Can you imagine reading a novel with the language used? My head hurt just from reading the single article.

But, I still can't find the manure....:rolleyes:

david b

11-12-2008, 09:05

My favorite sentence from the reviewer is:
"Synthetic gorgeousness iconizes pictures that flaunt the nonchalance of snapshots."

david b

11-12-2008, 09:06

BTW, Cartier Bresson was born rich as well. That's how he afforded the time to capture "the decisive moment".

:)

M. Valdemar

11-12-2008, 09:19

I go to the flea market a lot.

Sometimes I buy old photos and slides that I like.

If I found a box of Eggleston photos (and didn't know they were worth something), I would put them in the garbage.

sooner

11-12-2008, 09:31

I can't disagree about the pretentiousness of the New Yorker, but being a New Jersey transplant here in Oklahoma I kind of like it. After all, you wouldn't go to see the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall and then complain that nobody walks like that. But as far as I'm concerned, the investigative pieces a la guys like Seymour Hirsch make the magazine invaluable.

M. Valdemar

11-12-2008, 10:05

I've never worked a day in my life.

wlewisiii

11-12-2008, 10:14

I haven't read the article and don't intend to - I can certainly imagine it easily enough. :bang: It's annoying how some people just have to go out of their way to wear their hat on their as*. :(

There's a review in a recent issue of the New York Times as well, but I've not read that one either as I've never been able to get anything from Eggleston's works. If one of you could give me a pointer to a good (online or printed) overview of his work, I would appreciate it.

William

M. Valdemar

11-12-2008, 10:18

I like dog photos. Anyone got any good dog photos? Or naked Japanese girls. I like those too.

M. Valdemar

11-12-2008, 10:25

Well, then, why did Eggleston just take pictures of old junk in windows or busted tricycles?

If he's so smart where are his dog photos and Japanese girls?

M. Valdemar

11-12-2008, 10:41

That's a Chinese dog. I can't understand what he's saying.

kevin m

11-12-2008, 11:11

The New Yorker is perhaps the best general-interest publication in the English language. The fiction I usually give a miss, but the "Reporter at Large" series alone is worth the price of admission. And we haven't even mentioned the cartoons yet.

No one here would demand that a photographer print down to our level; why would anyone demand that a writer do the same? :confused:

Chriscrawfordphoto

11-12-2008, 11:13

Well you foolish man, everyone likes those.

I only have dog photos.

Most dog photos suck, but William Wegman's are pretty cool despite the fact that they depict dogs (I'm a cat person).

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/oliver/oliver-hitler1.jpg

http://chriscrawfordphoto.com/oliver/oliver-hitler4.jpg

M. Valdemar

11-12-2008, 11:15

After the mid-1960's the New Yorker cartoons went downhill.

Today, they are simply an embarrassment. Dreadful.

kevin m

11-12-2008, 11:25

Today, they are simply an embarrassment. Dreadful.

Your absolute faith in your narrow judgements is amusing. :D

M. Valdemar

11-12-2008, 11:37

Your absolute faith in your narrow judgements is amusing. :D

Even more amusing because I'm 100% correct.

sooner

11-12-2008, 12:44

I approach the New Yorker a little bit like I listen to sermons in church. Some weeks I skip altogether, other times I am enlightened, annoyed, or amused. Sometimes I am struck by a certain beauty without necessarily agreeing with anything. But when that Hirsch article comes along, I am reminded of what our "free" press is supposed to be doing.

mabelsound

11-12-2008, 13:07

Jesus, guys, are you nuts? That article is utterly straightforward. Peter Schjedahl is an excellent critic--I like him precisely because he doesn't obfuscate, and brings clarity to complex and subtle subjects. I don't see a single thing in there that's difficult to understand.

He’s an aesthete, not a propagandist. His great subject is the too-muchness of the real. He does regularly suppress one significant element of lived experience: time. His art re-proves Roland Barthes’s influential theory of the punctum—a Proustian quantum of lost time—as intrinsic to photography’s emotional power.

Yes, that's exactly right. It's a succinct description of part of what makes Eggleston great. You don't need to have read Barthes to understand it, you just have to think about it for a second.

The New Yorker isn't pretentious. It's a general-interest magazine. Rise to the challenge, guys. It's not that difficult.

Nh3

11-12-2008, 13:28

William Eggleston inherited the legacy of Walker Evans and Robert Frank's subject-focused photography and instead transformed it into photography-focused photography.

... And in doing so he unleashed the worst phase in photography history that continues to even today, trait boring bs pictures, saturated color photos, photography-for-photography's sake.

I can't stand his work but I like him as a dedicated practitioner of everything that I hate about contemporary photography.

mabelsound

11-12-2008, 13:31

Ahhh, Nh3, say what you really think ;-)

Nh3

11-12-2008, 13:45

I admire the guy, he is really good at what he does but his work is not socially or intellectually engaging.

mabelsound

11-12-2008, 13:48

Couldn't disagree more. But I certainly agree that he spawned some seriously lame imitators.

Anyway, I will go to this show in a few weeks, with any luck...

Nh3

11-12-2008, 13:53

Couldn't disagree more. But I certainly agree that he spawned some seriously lame imitators.

Anyway, I will go to this show in a few weeks, with any luck...

His photos are about him. They're murals to his gigantic ego.

His not in the same tradition of courageous and concerned photography that moves us and makes us better people.

kevin m

11-12-2008, 13:56

His photos are about him. They're murals to his gigantic ego.

As opposed to your gigantic ego?

You and Valdemar really need to lighten up with the "stone-tablet" pronouncements.

Carlsen Highway

11-12-2008, 14:11

Photomoof, its very simple.

Mr Eggleston's pictures flaunt the nonchalance of snapshots, would do.

But show me a synthetic gorgousness iconising a flaunting anything and I'll fry it and eat it.

But then I've never written for an arty magazine. Perhaps the editors put words in instead of taking them out in those publications.

All you take away from that piece is that a large vocabulary can be like having a enthusiastic overweight dog tangling round your ankles when your trying to have a decent conversation. It's difficult to spot Mr Eggleston through the thicket.

__

An unrelated observation from that above - I don't quite understand why the "rich" thing keeps coming up on this forum all the time...I have no real money, but it never occured to me that a rich person could make any greater or lesser photographs than myself....but the anti rich thing and it's defenders sort of crops up here often.

And our friend Henri came from a wealthy family, yes, but he lived on an allowance that in his words " was so small that often I had to choose between buying cigarettes and taking a girl out..."

Why does it depreciate Mr Egglestons art to find out he came from a rich family?
THis is not a dig at people who dont like rich artists, more a plea for understanding. Am I missing something?
Is it harder for a middle class income photographer to make good photographic art than it is to pass through the eye of a needle? Or is it the rich photographer. Where does the camel fit into this.
Are people worried that they wont become great photogrpahic artists due to the simple fact they weren't born to a rich family?
Is this not against popular culture which held that you have to be poor and starving to do anything worthwhile? Which is also crap.
Even Van Gogh, who started they whole concept, wasnt poor and starving. He had a nice little yellow house and a nice allowance form his brother so he didnt have to work, and spent his days painting and drinking absinthe. He didnt sell many pictures...but thats becasue according to the standards of the day, his pictures were crap.
They obviously didn't iconise nor flaunt any 19th century synthetic gorgousness.

Adam

11-12-2008, 14:43

As opposed to your gigantic ego?

You and Valdemar really need to lighten up with the "stone-tablet" pronouncements.

Aw, c'mon. This is great! The internet is a giant stone tablet, but there's room on it for us all to write. Besides, one or two of your comments in this very thread smell to me like Grand Proclamations (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Back on topic: I happen to think that almost every photograph I take is a monument to my own ego.

Carlsen Highway

11-12-2008, 14:56

Adam, come to think of it your probably right. Every time we push the button.
I made this.

benlees

11-12-2008, 14:59

Nobody brings out the vitriol like Eggleston! Not socially or intellectually engaging? What rot!

mabelsound

11-12-2008, 15:11

EDIT: post removed, never mind, arguing online is bad for my health...

climbing_vine

11-12-2008, 15:40

EDIT: post removed, never mind, arguing online is bad for my health...

Aw, bummer. I was just about to say a-friggin-men.

Nh3

11-12-2008, 15:44

EDIT: post removed, never mind, arguing online is bad for my health...

mablesound, your post which you just deleted reminded me of one of the passages from Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

"FLEE, my friend, into thy solitude! I see thee deafened with the
noise of the great men, and stung all over with the stings of the
little ones.

Flee, my friend, into thy solitude- and thither, where a rough
strong breeze bloweth. It is not thy lot to be a fly-flap."

:)

mabelsound

11-12-2008, 15:48

Sorry, Nh3, all those fancy words are over my head. ;-)

climbing_vine

11-12-2008, 17:34

Open assignment for everyone who is so smart that they don't need big words:

Restate that sentence in words of two syllables or less, with no compound adjectives.

Please. I'd love to see it.

(Not that the writing isn't, maybe, a little florid... but come on.)

benlees

11-12-2008, 17:52

It is funny Nietzsche is mentioned. Mainly because ol' Freidrich would find Eggleston quite captivating!

Tuolumne

11-12-2008, 17:56

climbing_vine

11-12-2008, 18:04

If you can't do this you don't understand the sentence.

/T

Touche, but not precisely the point. I can do it, but not without either losing subtlety or making an unnecessarily longer sentence. I don't love it the way it is:

"synthetic gorgeousness iconizes pictures that flaunt the nonchalance of snapshots."

But it's not as laborious as... well, I don't even have it in me right now to write the paragraph it would take.

Carlsen Highway

11-12-2008, 19:41

Oh come on you guys, all he has done is dress up a humble observation in parade dress, frilly cuffs and a ruff. Dont let him scare you.

"Synthetic gorgousness" can be removed, its meaningless. "Flaunt" actually can go as well. Photographs do not flaunt anything.
Iconise is a ten dollar word and I havnt got change.
Its simple
- His pictures have the nonchalance of snapshots.

But the subject of this sentence - "Synthetic gorgousness" is not even a person. Synthetic gorgousness doesnt actually DO anything, make less make photographs, nonchalant snapshots or not.

This writing is like a fat patron stuffing rich food into his gob so fast he cant swallow.

35mmdelux

11-12-2008, 21:30

every word and syntax was used except the phrase, "Eggleston is a great photographer !"

aizan

11-12-2008, 21:52

what are some examples of eggleston's lame imitators?

btw, eggleston didn't "betray" the legacy of evans and frank. neither of them would have even called themselves "concerned" photographers. that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Carlsen Highway

11-13-2008, 01:49

Mean spirited? Words are important.

MichaelW

11-13-2008, 02:27

Nobody brings out the vitriol like Eggleston!
I dunno, mention of Richard Prince usually makes a few heads explode.

climbing_vine

11-13-2008, 05:41

I have a BA in English, was engaged to an English professor who does crit theory (ugh), and eventually turned towards programming because I couldn't take the BS of the field anymore. I am an enemy of the high-falutin where it doesn't belong. Mark Twain is my favorite writer. But if you think:

"His pictures have the nonchalance of snapshots."

Is an accurate restating of this sentence, you did not understand the sentence. The rest of the words there are speaking explicitly to *how* his photos (in the critic's opinion) do not just have, but "flaunt" the nonchalance of snapshots. Having and flaunting are two *totally* different words, with different connotations. Equating the two is deliberate obfuscation.

And a subject of a sentence can't "do" something unless it's a person? So the atomic bomb doesn't spread fear? We're talking abstractions, here, but not difficult ones.

I don't think anyone in this thread is stupid. I just think some here buy into the fashion of anti-intellectualism instead of the substance of anti-obfuscation. Unfortunately.

J J Kapsberger

11-13-2008, 08:41

The New Yorker is an excellent magazine. It's simply among the best. The article is not pretentious. It's easy to read and make sense of. To disagree with this article is perfectly OK, but as has been pointed out there's an odious, infuriating anti-intellectual streak in this thread.

climbing_vine

11-13-2008, 08:52

yes, but what everybody's missing is that the writing seems to be pretense for the sake of pretense -- I don't mind intellectualism - just do it properly.

I'm still curious, how might you say some of the things in this article that are "pretense for the sake of pretense" without taking a paragraph or more to say something that he says in a sentence? I just don't see it. I'll go back to the example in this thread where someone replaced "flaunt" with "have"-- total bull****. Two completely different words, with utterly divergent meanings. "flaunt" wasn't pretense, it was the exact one-syllable word for what he wanted to say.

climbing_vine

11-13-2008, 09:12

The writer's style overall reminds me of the same guy that writes the stereotypical reviews of wine in the food and dining column in many cities - Eggelston's work can be reviewed without the typical art critic snobbishness - I guess a good single word to describe my impression of the reviewer based on the writing is a Manqué... But I digress - Playboy got it right, people would rather see the pictures than read the articles.

Art Critics and Food Critics generally feel the need to be the ones to write an esoteric review of something and feel that if you don't get it or agree with them, then you're less of a human being.

I'm going to agree with you on the general sentiments, but gently note that you still didn't address the article at hand in a specific manner.

aizan

11-13-2008, 09:20

can i at least complain about the excessive punctuation, or am i going to be accused of anti-intellectualism?

Dogman

11-13-2008, 09:25

Disregarding writing style for a moment, the content of the article offered nothing new and was derivative of various other articles I've read concerning Eggleston. I sometimes wonder if the people writing these reviews have ever actually seen any of the works they report about. Reminds me of my early journalist days with a small weekly newspaper. I wrote all the sports articles and never attended a single sporting event or interviewed a single athelete. I just rewrote the articles from the daily newspaper. It didn't require much expertise but it did help if you could thickly spread the BS.

Tuolumne

11-13-2008, 09:28

the following 3 paragraphs from Time sum up the artist and his life so much more... efficiently:

Eggleston is what you might call a bohemian of independent means, a descendant of the Mississippi Delta planter aristocracy who was also for a time the lover of Viva, the Andy Warhol superstar. Since the mid-1960s, he has lived, comfortably and at full throttle, in Memphis, Tenn.

When he comes to the door, he's in his customary Wasp regalia, a button- down cotton shirt and white suede shoes. Quantities of nicotine and bourbon have produced his voice, a liquid Southern baritone that reminds you of his friend Shelby Foote. It's a voice he dispenses in small doses. What that means is that he can stretch a sentence into next week while he deliberates on his next syllable or two.

He has lived an interesting life. At 69, Eggleston has been married to his wife Rosa for 44 years and raised three children. But his definition of wedlock has been elastic enough to permit numerous girlfriends and affairs. He has been known to shoot indoors--guns, not just pictures. There have been various run-ins with the law. And over the years, he's been the best of friends with Jim Beam and Jack Daniel's. He's also been one of the most original artists of your lifetime.

They sum up his life but not his art.

/T

tom_f77

11-13-2008, 09:47

Two quotes from the man himself, speaking on "William Eggleston in the real world" (a very interesting little film...):

"...trouble is with pictures, photographs... it's just about impossible to follow up with words. They don't have anything to do with each other."

"Art, or what we call that, you can love it and appreciate it but you can't really talk about it. It doesn't make any sense."

So...

Tom

David Goldfarb

11-13-2008, 09:48

"synthetic gorgeousness iconizes pictures that flaunt the nonchalance of snapshots."

It's really not that obscure in context.

Schjeldahl is talking about how the content of the photographs seem like the same snapshots everyone's uncle takes, and they even show off (flaunt) their seeming carelessness, but through the meticulously well executed craft of dye transfer printing, Eggleston transforms these everyday scenes into symbols (or perhaps icons) of their time and place.

There's a bit more there, which isn't needed to understand the sentence, but is interesting, if you happen to know it.

An icon in the context of Eastern Christianity is a very particular kind of symbol, because the perspective of any particular icon is always the same, no matter what the perspective of its visual context, so the icon provides a kind of window onto the plane of the divine for the viewer who is standing in the earthly plane. So to "iconize" these mundane scenes is to raise them from the level of representation to symbol in a way that provides a window onto the divine plane. They may not do it for you, but that's a separate issue from understanding what Schjeldahl is claiming.

"Synthetic gorgeousness," while simply speaking of the beauty of Eggleston's craft, also makes a nod toward the distinction between synthetic beauty and natural beauty. There's a hint of Decadentism (a movement in literature and the arts at the end of the 19th century, exemplified by J-K Huysmans' novel Against the Grain among other works) in this understanding of Eggleston. One characterization of the Decadentist movement was that it found beauty in artifice, and natural beauty in natural objects that appeared artificial, like the anthurium, a flower that looks like wax or plastic. Eggleston photographs things that stand out in their artificiality and even ugliness, but the artifice of his printing makes them beautiful, for Schjeldahl.

Andrew Sowerby

11-13-2008, 10:05

Entertaining. Where's that from?

gns

11-13-2008, 10:08

Memphis,

That may or may not say something about the man, but doesn't say a thing about the work. I think his work is the topic, no?

Cheers,
Gary

Tuolumne

11-13-2008, 10:28

It's really not that obscure in context.

Schjeldahl is talking about how the content of the photographs seem like the same snapshots everyone's uncle takes, and they even show off (flaunt) their seeming carelessness, but through the meticulously well executed craft of dye transfer printing, Eggleston transforms these everyday scenes into symbols (or perhaps icons) of their time and place.

There's a bit more there, which isn't needed to understand the sentence, but is interesting, if you happen to know it.

An icon in the context of Eastern Christianity is a very particular kind of symbol, because the perspective of any particular icon is always the same, no matter what the perspective of its visual context, so the icon provides a kind of window onto the plane of the divine for the viewer who is standing in the earthly plane. So to "iconize" these mundane scenes is to raise them from the level of representation to symbol in a way that provides a window onto the divine plane. They may not do it for you, but that's a separate issue from understanding what Schjeldahl is claiming.

"Synthetic gorgeousness," while simply speaking of the beauty of Eggleston's craft, also makes a nod toward the distinction between synthetic beauty and natural beauty. There's a hint of Decadentism (a movement in literature and the arts at the end of the 19th century, exemplified by J-K Huysmans' novel Against the Grain among other works) in this understanding of Eggleston. One characterization of the Decadentist movement was that it found beauty in artifice, and natural beauty in natural objects that appeared artificial, like the anthurium, a flower that looks like wax or plastic. Eggleston photographs things that stand out in their artificiality and even ugliness, but the artifice of his printing makes them beautiful, for Schjeldahl.

That's much better. And if you think your paragraph and Schjeldahl's sentence are on a par with one another you're wrong. Yours is much better.

/T

gns

11-13-2008, 10:32

Memphis,

The work (once it is done) exists independent of the man. It succeeds or fails on its own. You don't need to understand the man's personal life to get the pictures. His reputation for being some kind of character (Barry Hannah stories come to mind) is neither here nor there for me.

Whether you like his work or not, it seems silly to imply there is nothing more to it than the printing.

I agree, Big Star is cool.

Cheers,
Gary

Roger Hicks

11-13-2008, 10:49

I just think some here buy into the fashion of anti-intellectualism instead of the substance of anti-obfuscation. Unfortunately.

Seconded.

Cheers,

R.

climbing_vine

11-13-2008, 10:50

That's much better. And if you think your paragraph and Schjeldahl's sentence are on a par with one another you're wrong. Yours is much better.

/T

I agree.

But the New Yorker can't publish a 400 page article. So people learn to write like this to at least try to get that across.

mabelsound

11-13-2008, 11:07

I agree, Big Star is cool.

Could it be that we can all agree on this? I certainly hope so...

gns

11-13-2008, 11:24

Memphis,

No, same goes for the stones. A song (or album) to be a success, must be complete as it is. No additional info required.

"...the New Yorker can't publish a 400 page article".
I thought that was their specialty.

Is Alex Chilton still around?

Cheers,
Gary

Adam

11-13-2008, 12:08

...retired to my little Brooklyn tower of photography (with a nod to L Cohen's, Tower of Song).

Talk in grunts among yourselves.

There's a blaze of light in every grunt.

sepiareverb

11-13-2008, 16:02

Time and The New Yorker are two completely different magazines- I would pick up Time to distract myself for a little while (as I did at the dentists office today) but I pick up The New Yorker to gain insight from people who are very good at what they do. Time has a lot more in common with People than The New Yorker. Snobbish? No, I think The New Yorker is simply a better written magazine, that continues to aspire to be better, where Time seems to aspire only to simplify what they write about to the lowest common denominator.

The New Yorker Eggleston article seems to aim to place the work in context of the time and understand how it has influenced the imagery of today. I look forward to his articles, and will admit to being disappointed when the latest issue doesn't have one. The Time article touches on this, but seems to be more about Eggleston himself than about the work (beyond simple description) or it's influence- something I have more interest in. Why does it matter if he was born rich or poor? How long he's been married? I suppose all of this does influence ones work in some way, but thirty or forty years on it is the work that has more resonance than the social status of the photographer.

Simply different strokes for different folks no?

sepiareverb

11-13-2008, 17:05

I guess it depends what you like in writing- wine or budweiser.

Tuolumne

11-14-2008, 05:08

Seconded.

Cheers,

R.

Moderator,
The final word has been said. Close the thread!

/T

Tuolumne

11-14-2008, 05:16

I agree.

But the New Yorker can't publish a 400 page article. So people learn to write like this to at least try to get that across.

That's true, but there are other ways to achieve brevity. I have been reading the New Yorker since 1965, and this is the first time I have ever seen fit to comment on one of its articles or reviews for its sheer pretentiousness. And most of the reviews for the past 10 years have been very brief.

/T

wlewisiii

11-14-2008, 05:33

My daughter is starting to like some Big Star

Which reminds me, I need to find out what Paul Westerberg is up to these days... ;)

William

climbing_vine

11-14-2008, 05:33

That's true, but there are other ways to achieve brevity. I have been reading the New Yorker since 1965, and this is the first time I have ever seen fit to comment on one of its articles or reviews for its sheer pretentiousness. And most of the reviews for the past 10 years have been very brief.

/T

Fair enough. I didn't think it was a great review, but I thought some of the particular "translations" being suggested were.... revealing.

wlewisiii

11-14-2008, 05:59

[QUOTE=memphis;932063]Paul Westerberg has been talking about a band reunion for a while -- /QUOTE]

Cool story. The boys got together for two new tracks on the hits album earlier this year so there's hope. Just a wee bit more sober this time, eh?

William

gns

11-14-2008, 06:27

I have to laugh, realizing that we have over a hundred posts discussing a magazine article while there has probably never been anything remotely close to that volume of discussion here on Eggleston's pictures (if any).

Cheers,
Gary

M. Valdemar

11-14-2008, 06:28

This guy is another one in a long line of fakers who gain momentary notoriety and then, after their 15 minutes are up, their stuff ends up in the garbage where it belongs.

Would YOU pay $15,000 for one of his prints?

gns

11-14-2008, 06:34

"...momentary notoriety and then, after their 15 minutes are up, their stuff ends up in the garbage where it belongs".

Momentary notoriety???
15 minutes???
Stuff ends up in the trash???
Huhh???

I mean if you don't like his work, fine. And if you want to say why, even better. But these statements don't speak about the work at all. Plus, they couldn't be more blatantly false.

Cheers,
Gary

M. Valdemar

11-14-2008, 06:44

Warhol and Winogrand are fakers. The rest, not too bad.

Brady was in the right place at the right time with the right technology, and most "Brady's" are not by Brady. But they are good historical documents.

Tuolumne

11-14-2008, 06:51

M. Valdemar

11-14-2008, 07:13

Yes it is. (Showing up that is, sometimes that's all it takes)

Brady was basically running a business. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, he was supplying images for mass sale and consumption, some of which happened to transcend their commercialism and become "art" or priceless documents.

Then you have the modern version of commercial "art". Warhol had an actual "factory" where others made his art. It's good commercial pap for the masses, and other co-opted the psychedelic era, like Peter Max, who produced derivative junk.

This is the logical extension:

http://www.thestalwart.com/the_stalwart/2007/11/chinese-art-fac.html

Winogrand? If you sent a monkey out to shoot 1,000,000 rolls of film, you'd get hundreds of "masterpieces". I think he was an obsessive nut.

The problem with the internet and mass marketing is once you iconize someone or his works, the legions of drones give him an internal Canonization (pun intended), and if anyone says the Emperor has no clothes, the spoon-fed public get their high-brow balls in an uproar.