The Unseen Photographs of a Legend that Never Was

Who the hell cares if she was "good" or not? Are the images that are shown good images? Yes. Do they stir my emotions and do they have some significance in a social/historical context while also expressing sound photographic technique? Yes and yes.

So why debate whether she was a "true artist" when it doesn't matter. At all. It does not matter at all.

The images are what they are, and they are good regardless of whether she was a bona fide pro or whatever.

"Hey guys, want to look at some awesome photography?"

"Nah man I'd rather flex my intellect so that everybody knows that I have superior reasoning and knowledge."

Arguing for the sake of arguing gets people shot.
 
Last edited:
That's a pretty reductionist viewpoint. Just because you don't find certain questions interesting doesn't mean other people should not.
 
That's a pretty reductionist viewpoint. Just because you don't find certain questions interesting doesn't mean other people should not.

Andrew, you wouldn't by chance have a relative from La Mancha? ;)
 
Well just because I find it interesting that my friend flunked out of college doesn't mean that I'm going to bring it up while he's talking about landing his big CEO job.

I've just noticed that on this forum photography takes a backseat to "who's the bigger intellectual" and I find it dumb.

A question can be both interesting and irrelevant. If being a reductionist keeps me from making pointless assertions about a really interesting, small little story about a "supposed" great photographer then so be it.

I guess I'm just going to play he fool and enjoy the images. Shame on me.
 
I have high hopes that in the case of attribution of work, an issue closely allied to the intellectual property issues so dear to TPF's black little heart, there MIGHT be people other than me who find it interesting! Although, arguably, the discussion has already been had.
 
Also, the question of who's the bigger intellectual has LONG be settled. Also, who's the prettiest.
 
So why debate whether she was a "true artist" when it doesn't matter. At all. It does not matter at all.

I can agree that in the long term, it probably doesn't matter, as you say, however it is merely a point of discussion, and as such I find it extremely interesting. The point being; was she good enough to make nearly every shot a winner, or was the body of work so large and random that the curators were able to cull the bad ones and end up with a fairly large portfolio of decent work?

Well, each of us has our own opinion, and it matters not how each of us "voted" because in the end, it is her work, not ours.

FWIW: I think she had a gift and knew it.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top