From: 40 Frames (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 13:53:18 PDT
>> Why does the material specificity
>> matter for photography (which has its own history of struggle for being
>> considered an artform),
>
> Why actually, have we cast off so far away from still photography ?
>
> I know all the aesthetic arguments. I know what time based structure is
> all about. I know why Peter Hutton or James Benning are not doing
> "photographs that move."
>
> But critically can't Brakhage and Minor White be discussed together ?
>
> Dorsky and William Eggleston even ?
>
> -Sam
Eggleston is exactly who I was thinking of when I made the above comment(s).
Locally speaking, the art's council would never question why it would cost
an artist $30,000 (and more) to create a public installation, or a bronze
sculpture, or mural, or a group of paintings. Expense of the at
object/creation really has nothing to do with what the council is willing
to fund. For instance, the council doesn't say to an artist: bronze is too
expensive why don't you work with paper mache since that is cheaper.
--Alain
================
40 FRAMES
Alain LeTourneau
Pamela Minty
425 SE 3rd, #400
Portland, OR 97214
United States
+1 503 231 6548
email suppressed
http://www.40frames.org
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.