On February 5, 2014 9:39:15 AM EST, Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> wrote: > >On Feb 5, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> >wrote: > >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> I think some of Vivian Meyers images are nice, but many are very >ordinary. >>> I think she got a lot of attention in part because it was a “garage >find.” >>> A trove of unknown work from a mysterious source. >> >> Even assuming your statement is true, that would be precisely the >> point: That even ordinary images can be of great interest or >> historical importance (or even simple "popularity" - there's nothing >> wrong with that) long after the fact. We can't judge now what future >> generations will deem significant. >> >> No one could have guessed at the time it was taken that that snapshot >> of Anne Frank (which is even more banal than anything Vivian Meyers >> took) would have become one of the icons of the 20th century. >> Countless other examples exist of photographs turning up of important >> people taken before they became famous, from Abraham Lincoln to John >> Lennon. Things, places or events that became significant after they >> were captured in banal snapshots (the Titanic). Even critical >evidence >> about important events has turned up retrospectively in what were >> thought to be throwaway images. Someone may yet discover an old >> shoebox of photos with one that shows the second gunman on the Grassy >> Knoll (or a photo of JFK's assassination that clearly shows there >> *wasn't* anyone on the Grassy Knoll). >> >> I don't see anyone or anything being harmed by people archiving their >> mediocre images. One of them may contain the 3rd grade portrait of >the >> guy who discovered the cure for Aids in the year 2050. And if it >> doesn't? No skin off my nose. >> >> — >I agree. Much of photography is of interest because it provides a >historical record. A very small amount of that is artful. Both types >are of value and worthy of preservation. My hope is that Grace will >someday be a woman of accomplishment and that long after I’m gone, >someone will be pleased that I recorded her childhood. Even if it’s >only her children. > >My point about the Meyers work, which someone held up as an example of >art rescued, is merely that there was heightened interest due to the >way it was discovered and the personal history of the person who took >the photos. Nothing wrong with that, and I enjoyed perusing galleries >of her photos, but I doubt that future generations will judge the >overall body of her work as artful. Then again, I could be wrong. It >wouldn’t be the first time. But only time will tell. > >Paul >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >and follow the directions.
Any chance we can spell Vivian's surname correctly? For posterity's sake, I suppose. It's "Maier". I've been waiting for 1/2 hour in a snowy parking lot for the supermarket to open, after driving through today's storm, so forgive me for being grumpy. Returning to the original topic, it took me months (years?) to get my mum to download photos from her card to the computer--the process seemed too complicated to her. Still today I sometimes get calls because her pictures "disappeared" while she was trying to download them and I must fix the issue for her, which isn't easy seeing as she's on the other side of the Atlantic from me. Kudos goes to Sandisk more than Pentax in this story, by the way. Cheers, —M. \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
