Has there really been progress in photography? Reflections upon viewing the works of Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, you seem to find a lot of things hilarious or ludicrous, but that means little except lack of maturity, and lack of thinking or understanding.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Simon, it means nothing more than that I find certain things to be hilarious and ludicrous. There are some things in the world that are hilarious and ludicrous. I will point them out from time to time. I could often say more than that, but, if they are ludicrous enough, I might leave it at that. Some things are not worthy of intense analysis. As for the hilarious, if something strikes one as funny, then it strikes one as funny. I am not prepared to offer a theory of humor.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

Really? Someone tries to describe their personal reaction to a photo, with plenty of interesting and sensitive observations, which you find that hilarious. And you think that that says nothing about you?

 

I'd hoped a few pages ago in this thread that you might be a little more perceptive than that, and had tried discussing the whole thing with you as with an adult, but disappointment all round.

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Really? Someone tries to describe their personal reaction to a photo, with plenty of interesting and sensitive observations, which you find that hilarious. And you think that that says nothing about you?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It says that I found it funny. Please remember that here is the photo that we are discussing:<a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ" target="_blank"></a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ</a></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And here are the "interesting, sensitive observations" which provoked spontaneous laughter on my part:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I see a glowing cross submerged in liquid, glistening bubbles that give some life and dynamism to the surroundings. There's a warmth, both in the colors and in the cross being so bathed. The lighting is awesome, almost like the shining sun. It seems religious. Actually, no. Better than that, it seems spiritual. The lighting seems to take us to just above Jesus's head. It's elevating.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As I said, Simon, it struck me as if it were satire, and not just any satire, but GREAT SATIRE!</p>

<p>I'm laughing again. I can't help it, Simon. I find it funny, darned funny. No offense intended.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

No need to keep linking to the image, it's a very famous one, iconic (in more senses than one). When you discuss the

Mona Lisa, do you link to it in every post, just in case people don't remember what it looks like?

 

Again, I suspect it just reflects your lack of knowledge on the subject, as you seem to think it's an image most of us might not know without reference.

 

As for your hilarity, most nights we have drunken brainless idiots laughing inanely in the courtyard beneath out flat at

2 or 3 in the morning. If you like to laugh out of your own ignorance, then by all means do so, but it's on the same level. Only they have the excuse of being drunk.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Simon, feel free to keep ranting. I have other things to do right now.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

Thank Heavens. Taking the University of Evangelical Philistinism elsewhere...

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Good! You've been clubbing me over the head with Serrano's smelly crucifix since 9:58 this morning, over four hours ago. Four hours of non-stop verbal assault! Simon, you surely have earned some sort of medal.</p>

<p>How about a smelly cruficix in a jar of golden liquid? Just as a token of our appreciation, of course. . . .</p>

<p>It will have to be a knock-off, though. I can't afford the original. It's too. . . valuable!</p>

<p>Wait here while I prepare it for you. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

Hmm, my annoyance was only the last hour or so. Before that I was really trying my best to get you to make a

perceptive or sensible contribution to the discussion as politely as possible. Eventually gave up.

 

Sending a jar of urine? If it makes you happy.

 

I see that you're a college lecturer. I was wondering if you laugh at your students every time they make a perceptive

comment that you don't understand? Which I suspect will be a regular occurrence, it must be a barrel of laughs!

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Hey, Simon, you do some neat stuff, man!</p>

<p>http://www.simoncroftsphoto.com/</p>

<p>http://simoncroftsphoto.com/blog/</p>

<p>Good show. Wish we could get you to post some photos here on PN.</p>

<p>(Now go back and read your 9:58 a.m. post. . . .)</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lannie,<br>

You start by asking the progress since the era of 3 photographers, and yet, you have not given one complete, structured insightful description of why a (any!) specific photo does or does not appeal to you. Instead, you ridicule those who did (this last one is really of the mark: <em>you've been clubbing me over the head with Serrano's smelly crucifix since 9:58 this morning</em> - remember who brought this photo into discussion?).</p>

<p>You have troubles with remarks like "Serrano cannot be compared to Shakespeare" being called value statements that are hard to discuss. But it just does not get beyond "I like it", or "I just don't get it (insert link to Piss Christ here)". Nobody ever said you cannot make value statements, but without some explanation, there is absolutely nothing to talk about.<br>

Instead of laughing at Fred's description (you do not have to agree, you could have tried anwering with respect, though), let me see your attempt, please.</p>

<p>So, what did you want to discuss originally? Don't you think that if you want to have a meaningful discussion on how photography progressed since a point in time, you have to be able to come up with a bit more insight than "I like it"? You have to be able to establish a begin point and an end point, describe them, so we at least get an idea of the change between begin and end? Without having a view on this change, how do you want to discuss whether there was "progress"?</p>

<p>In my view, if you would have taken time to rephrase your question to try to get rid of value statements, it could have been a good discussion on the history of photography as an artform, how it changed and how it didn't. Instead, you dodged responsibility for everything you said, you replied very very selectively and jumped on all sort of minor remarks that were only slightly on topic. All the time, leaving the original question in a sorry state. And when people call upon your responsibility to discuss topics you brought up yourself, you start to make fun of them.</p>

<p>I should not post again in this thread and know (and behave) better, but it's just too irritating and disgraceful to see this.<br>

__________________<br>

Ah well, let me try to answer your original question, in a way that fits the way you handled the question:<br>

<em>Yes, but I like the old photos too, a lot.</em></p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Is there a Midol shortage on the other side of the Atlantic today?</p>

<p>Guys, get a grip.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>Hey, Simon, you do some neat stuff, man!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, that's good of you to say so. But flattery will get you nowhere! Errr, I think.. Possibly.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Lannie, where's the beef? What stands out about the Serrano (and now, in retrospect) is the fact that you can't or won't provide any perceptible means of support to your evaluations. Not just to Serrano, but to the question of your thread. This basically reduces your "evaluations" to pure tastemongering and endemic edicts beyond discussion. Speaking of taste, I thought it deplorable to ridicule what Fred had to say about Serrano on more than one occasion, and inconceivable to have used one of his own photos <em>against</em> him. That should not be allowed on PN (just my opinion).</p>

<p>You drag Serrano out to crucify him, ask for opinions, get them, do not reply, then use the excuse of time for a dodge. Come on, you can do better than that.</p>

<p>I've already made my thoughts on Serrano known here a few months ago. They're not far removed from Fred & Simon, but you know that from the last Serrano go-round. </p>

<p>What is clear is the problem with hierarchical evaluations, specially those with no visible means of support.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I thought it deplorable to ridicule what Fred had to say about Serrano on more than one occasion, and inconceivable to have used one of his own photos <em>against</em> him. That should not be allowed on PN (just my opinion).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>LUIS: POST A PICTURE. I assume that you have something to offer. Instead, you suddenly want to censor what others post. That is unconscionable to me.</p>

<p>Fred posted a defense of Serrano. I laughed. Simon kept bringing it back up. I kept laughing. It was truly funny. It still is.</p>

<p>Fred also attacked my artistic "sensibility." I posted a link to his own work so that the source of the attack on my own artistic sensibility could be evaluated, by comparison.</p>

<p>I would do it again, in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>I post what is on my mind, not someone else's. You have the choice of responding to it or ignoring it--or you could exercise the third option: POST A PICTURE, LUIS. ANY OLD PICTURE. SHOW US THAT YOU KNOW WHAT A CAMERA IS.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Is this a compare each other's photography thread? I'd assumed it was discuss the direction of contemporary photography thread.</p>

<p>I didn't catch the significance of the link to Fred's picture earlier either. It was an intriguing picture, but the significance of the link in the context of the thread was...?</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred also attacked my artistic "sensibility." I posted a link to his own work so that the source of the attack on my own artistic sensibility could be evaluated, by comparison.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />"Artistic sensibility" has nothing to do with one's own work, except as it applies to one's own work. Many great photographers seem to have terrible critical skills and many great critics are not photographers. In other words, there is no connection. </p>

<p>This is a ridiculous way to carry on a conversation.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> the fact that you can't or won't provide any perceptible means of support to your evaluations. Not just to Serrano, but to the question of your thread.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. It appears to be bleating to hear the bleating.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Simon, it was in response to this post by Fre<em>d:</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred G.</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Sep 24, 2011; 09:08 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br /> when I reread this I simply laugh<br>

I'm not surprised, and I don't take it personally. It's got to do with your sensibility as a viewer and not with me, Serrano, or the photograph.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is, if Fred is going to attack my own "artistic sensibility," I am not going to respond in kind. I am going to let his own "artistic sensibility" speak for itself--in this case, by linking to his last posted photo on Photo.net.</p>

<p>--Lannie<br>

.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It appears to be bleating to hear the bleating.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you speaking of your own posts, Jeff? </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

<blockquote>

<p>I am going to let his own "artistic sensibility" speak for itself--in this case, by linking to his last posted photo on Photo.net</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But you linked to a very strong picture - you were trying to say that Fred really knows what he was talking about?</p>

<p>Or the homoerotic elements in the picture disturbed you, and you thought that others would be offended by that?</p>

[inoneeye]

<p>ooops</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The point, Simon, is that I don't have to evaluate Fred's work: let it speak for itself.</p>

<p>There has been no substantive comment about photography here in some hours. </p>

<p>This is exactly what a thread should not devolve to. It has clearly outlived its usefulness.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Ah, I had the impression that perhaps you might be trying to make a point by linking to that particular photo. Rather than just generally pointing out that Fred is an excellent photographer and that we should listen carefully to what he has to say.</p>

<p>But if it was the latter, then fine!</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I will respond one more time, Simon, lest I be misunderstood on a very important issue. Although I do not like the photo, my evaluation of it has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. People do not choose their sexual orientation. I have two daughters, one gay, one straight. They are both distinguished in what they do, and they are both fine human beings. I love them both equally.</p>

<p>Ordinarily I would not respond to this sort of thing, Simon, but I did want to make it clear (after your allusion to homoerotic elements) that that is not a factor in whether I like the photo or not.</p>

<p>Fred does some brilliant work, and his comments on the various forums are unsurpassed when he is at his best.</p>

<p>Nobody was at their best today, including me. I regret that. We can do better. We will do better.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>OK, thank you for clearing that up, it had me worried. Not gay myself, but I hate any hint of prejudiced attitudes.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, it's gone far enough, or too far, let's leave the whole discussion.</p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>There is one more issue about <strong>the Andrés Serrano picture</strong> that might be of interest: the title.<strong> I wonder if leaving off the title would have affected the evaluation of the photo.</strong></p>

<p>It is certain that titling the picture as Serrano did certainly provoked a reaction that led to a lot of publicity. I personally doubt that the photo would have been as famous (or infamous) if it had not been so titled.</p>

<p>Would we here on Photo.net evaluate it the same way today if it had not had the title that it had? Would our discussion have taken a different trajectory?</p>

<p>Fred praised it for its artistic merits without reference to the title, as far as I remember. I think that there was thus a serious attempt to evaluate the photo pure and simple. I laughed and posted the link to the picture because I don't think that that particular picture is "the same picture" without the title. (I put that phrase in scare quotes because I know that it is the same picture, but its impact was certainly different, as if it had two potential existences, one with the title, one without.)</p>

<p>In other words, how would the photo have been received if it had simply been left "Untitled"? Would it be memorable? That is, <strong>would we even remember it without the title?</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>