On 02/04/11 00:03, bob catchpole wrote: > On 02/04/11 0:27, Rob Myers wrote: > >>Yes. > > "Yes"?... that the documentary photography of Andre Kertesz, Robert > Frank, Bill Brandt, Diane Arbus, W. Eugene Smith, Josef Koudelka, Inge > Morath, Raghu Rai, August Sander, Dorothea Lange, Henri Cartier-Bresson, > Walker Evans, Eve Arnold, Ernest Cole, Lewis Hine, Lee Friedlander, > Philip Jones Griffiths, Brassai, Richard Avedon etc etc doesn't qualify > as 'art'?
It qualifies (at one time or another) as trespass, common assault, theft of property and labour, infringing copying of copyrighted art/graphic design/industrial design/architecture/ship hulls, harassment, commercial photography without permission, breach of personality rights, breach of privacy rights, alleged child pornography, failure to acquire a model release, defamation of character, forgery, and improper use of hazardous materials. It is also, as any judge can see, simply a mechanical reproduction of other people's property to the extent that it competently reproduces a recognizable image of it. If we apply the same standard to documentary photography that we are being asked to apply to other art, not only is it not art but it should be seized and destroyed and its subjects or their descendants compensated by the photographer or their estate. This may seem ridiculous, but that's only because it is. Both in the case of documentary photographers and in the case of Prince. - Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
