P3D Re: PHOTO-3D digest 3638

[Rehotshots@xxxxxxx]

Thank you Larry for the clarification on crossing one's eyes to view stereo 
photography.  I feel much better about trying it now.  However, at the moment 
my eyes are already crossed from sewing for so long today.  Well they at 
least feel like they are.  I think I'll wait and try that tomorrow.  

Well, not to wear the subject out, hopefully...  Art galleries have limited 
space and must choose out of the tons of work out there.  I'm not sure, but I 
think that choice is made by a single person, the curator.  That in itself 
seems unfair to me, if in fact it is 
the case.  For some odd reason our species is extremely influenced by what 
the media pitches.  If something is in an art gallery does that mean that we 
have to accept it as art?  If  an artist gets his/her work in the Louve it 
will bring a higher price at auction than if he gets in a gallery in New 
York.  If he gets in a New York gallery 
it will bring a higher price than if he gets it in Chicago , etc., etc... It 
generally is a lot of hype.   Personally, I like to get my art work at craft 
shows.  I once saw a man make sculptures out of buckets with some kind of 
welding torch.  Now , to me that was very creative.  And they were very good. 
 They were characters, like a man fishing or a woman dancing.  They weren't 
so realistic that they were boring, but they weren't so abstract that you 
couldn't figure out what you were looking at either.  But, that's just me.  I 
have never personally felt that anyone else's judgement, curator or not, was 
any better than mine.  Art is subjective.   I don't really think that it can 
be defined.  It is not a science.  Trying to define art is like trying to 
define love.  However, in art class  I remember being told that "a great"  
artist'  work  must reflect the age in which he lives.  Well, the things you 
saw certainly did that.  The things you saw certainly sound like commentary 
on the state of our society to me.  They disturbed you so it sounds like they 
were effective.  Maybe that is how the artist wanted you to feel--disturbed 
by the lack of beauty in our society and disturbed by the violence in our 
society. Would I want this stuff in my house?  No.  Do I think it is art?  
Yes. 
 
Well, I would have to know a little bit about the artist, but I think that he 
had a feeling 
about all this and was trying to express that feeling and he did it in a way 
that we have not seen before.  Will it be remembered through the course of 
history?  Probably not because we tend to block out negative things.  I think 
this, or these artists will be forgotten in time, simply because the subject 
of their work is negative.  
Who knows, maybe I'm reading it all wrong.  Maybe these guys love tar and 
steel and are racists.  

The brick on your building is more like an exact science.  However, I know a 
brick mason who so loves his work that, to him, it is art.  Who am I to say 
it isn't?

The dirt and weeds in your yard are probably not art, but the dirt and weeds 
in Prince Mongo's yard probably are art,  because of intent.  He probably 
grows weeds intentionally, preferring them over roses.  Art is intent, art is 
communication, commentary, inventiveness, style, it evokes emotion, it shows 
us something we haven't seen that way before, it's a perspective, it's 
composition.  Art is wit, it's
sensitivity, it is the expression of everything that we are and we are 
certainly not 
just sensitive to aesthetics.  

And by the way, I think you wrapping your dog in aluminum foil and painting 
him green and hanging him in a tree is very creative and I would definitely 
consider that 
art.  I may not realize that it was commentary on the absurdity of what is 
called art, but I probably realize that it was commentary on absurdity. You 
have proved my 
point that we are all creative.  Your letter was creative.  I could feel the 
heat coming from the page.  Do you put this kind of passion into your 
photography?  Can't wait 
to see some of them.  

I think that is really sad that there was no photography.  Photography is so 
prolific. 
It's everywhere.  It's actually more popular than the printed word.  We just 
don't call 
it art and that's what tics us off.  I don't have much time to watch TV, but 
I've seen 
commercials that I thought were art and some of these photographs in magazines
to me are art.  Why do we have to see it in a gallery before we can accept  
it as art?
But, youre right, we should be represented there and we have been in some 
places.  
In Memphis we have paintings, sculptures, photographs and films all the time 
and 
photography is taught here as an art form in the school of art.  What I would 
like to see is a gallery exclusively displaying photography and the different 
processes and 
periods and styles and uses:  halograms and stereo and conventional and 
films. 
Wouldn't that be a blast?

The Renaissance artist,  whom so many galleries revere, were actually 
considered 
artisans or craftsmen during their on time.  Illustrator's have only in 
recent history 
come to be considered artists by galleries.  So what we see in galleries is 
basically 
limited by  the limitations of those chosing the work to display.  Broaden 
this guy's 
perspective.  Show him some photography that you feel warrants display.  He's 
just a man like you.  Put's his pants on one leg at a time, just like you.  
Surely he's familiar with Adams, Weston, and Cartier-Bresson, (thanks 
Howard).  Maybe you can convince him that we need a whole section as they 
have here in Memphis.               
    
I am so excited to find this group.  This is really the manifestation of a 
childhood 
dream I've had since I first picked up a viewmaster.  Has anyone out there 
ever tried 
to make a stereo photo or slide out of 2 totally different scenes, but 
related?  Kind of 
like a double exposure in conventional photography?  Can it be done 
effectively?  

                                                                              
-Teri