That observation on "banality of evil" depends more on your perspective than on any talent on the part of the photographer. Those of us on the other side of the political spectrum would likely see something else altogether. Or, perhaps nothing at all.
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." Now who was it that sang that song?
Cate, I actually am in agreement with you in terms of appreciating the candor in AL's statement. Still, though, the fact remains that her work lacks it (in my frank opinion) and therefore does nothing for me.
That observation on "banality of evil" depends more on your perspective than on any talent on the part of the photographer. Those of us on the other side of the political spectrum would likely see something else altogether. Or, perhaps nothing at all.
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." Now who was it that sang that song?
Lee,
While I am generally closer to Svend's side of the political spectrum than yours - I found his statement unnecessary, OT and a "flame".
Frankly, it undermines his OP and suggests he had a different agenda than to just discuss the merits of the artist.
Back to the topic on hand ... I thumbed through the book at the local B&N a while ago and I personally didn't find the images within interesting. Well, not exactly true, I found it pretentious, so maybe it had great artistic vision? Dunno. I didn't buy it.
Location: Helsinki, Finland for over 14 years now.
Posts: 755
My observation on "the Bush picture" was necessary (to me). I don't know what OT is. If by "flame" you meant that I was out to provoke you or someone else here on APUG, no I was not. I couldn't care less.
No agenda, just curiousity about what people think of the book, which has some interesting content -- the Bush picture being the most interesting thing in it for me. I have some very well-informed and strong thoughts, perspectives and opinions about America's current foreign policy. That's neither here nor there, certainly not for APUG.
My observation on "the Bush picture" was necessary (to me). I don't know what OT is. If by "flame" you meant that I was out to provoke you or someone else here on APUG, no I was not. I couldn't care less.
No agenda, just curiousity about what people think of the book, which has some interesting content -- the Bush picture being the most interesting thing in it for me. I have some very well-informed and strong thoughts, perspectives and opinions about America's current foreign policy. That's neither here nor there, certainly not for APUG.
Since this is an international forum with people of diverse backgrounds and viewpoints - yes, I do think your comment was calculated to be inflammatory.
I don't doubt that you have "strong thoughts, perspectives and opinions about America's current foreign policy" since your use of the phrase "banality of evil" in the earlier post was hardly a neutral comment.
As a matter of fact, while I might be somewhat inclined to agree with you (although I waver between "evil" and "stupid" in describing the man and his Administration) I don't think it adds anything to the discussion and unnecessarily angers folks who have different viewpoints.
I had a friend who assisted her at one time. She went in with alot of respect for her and come out with absolutely none. The assistants do everything and she comes in and presses the shutter. At least thats what I was told by someone who worked for her briefly before walking out.
Leibovitz came here during the war and Peter Lindbergh in one interview described that adventure of her wery well. In short he said he didin't liked her comming with whole bunch of assistants, journalists etc which followed her and made quite good advertizing campaign of hers comming. So, she came to "help and sympathyse" with poor savages and get quite media attention.
You know like when you donate for some humanitarian purposes, and then get tax deduction
Then again, she came and he didn't
__________________
Bosnia... You don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps...
I am not a fan of her work, either and have the book(s), her latest and on the Olympics ( which seems more honest editorially). But why I am responding here with all of what has been written for and against her work is that during her Detroit Institute of Arts opening late last year AL was to speak in person at a special lecture discussing her approach, et al. Well, she not only did not show up (I know, its Detroit) but she told the curator of photography that she had a commercial job worth $100K and could not pass it up for a lecture and one woman show of her work. I guess short of any other excuse, the curator had to say like it is in front of 300 people who had paid to hear her. This in-your-face approach by many of her 'famous' celebrity subjects' seems to have rubbed off on Ms. L
Linear Mode
