Richard Avedon farewell

Well I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt,
I must say though you have nothing credible to say in the
matter.

Hence forth you are to be viewed along the same lines as
Michael Scarpitti.



In article , wrote:

Please, let's not raise the Beatles up to historical significance. They were
a pop
group that wrote a few good songs - nothing more. And I'm sure I can come up
with some
kids that will not recognize any Beatle song you put on the turntable, oh I
mean the CD
player - wasn't their stuff re-issued on CD?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I guess I'm going to end up being added to some more people's killfiles now that
I've questioned whether or not the Beatles should belong in a history book. I can
see iconoclasts are not welcomed here.

Gregory Blank wrote:

Well I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt,
I must say though you have nothing credible to say in the
matter.

Hence forth you are to be viewed along the same lines as
Michael Scarpitti.

In article , wrote:

Please, let's not raise the Beatles up to historical significance. They were
a pop
group that wrote a few good songs - nothing more. And I'm sure I can come up
with some
kids that will not recognize any Beatle song you put on the turntable, oh I
mean the CD
player - wasn't their stuff re-issued on CD?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Big difference between a true iconoclast and someone who just offers
a revisionist view of history for the purpose of sophistical arguments
(i.e., attacking the well known, universally acknowledged significance
of various artists.)

Such revisionism is not iconoclasm. The view that Avedon was not a
great photographer is a matter of opinion; that he was significant
cannot be challenged. Likewisew, whether one likes the Beatles or not
their signifcance and influence simply cannot be challenged. True
iconoclasm would be challenging the *ideas* the Beatles influenced
society with, e.g., long hair styles or the concept that all you need
is love. That they were merely a run of the mill pop band is a
ridiculous revisionist statement.

As greg said, you simply have no credibility...

In article , wrote:

I guess I'm going to end up being added to some more people's killfiles now
that I've questioned whether or not the Beatles should belong in a history book.
book. I can see iconoclasts are not welcomed here.

Gregory Blank wrote:

Well I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt,
I must say though you have nothing credible to say in the
matter.

Hence forth you are to be viewed along the same lines as
Michael Scarpitti.

In article , wrote:

Please, let's not raise the Beatles up to historical significance. They
were
a pop
group that wrote a few good songs - nothing more. And I'm sure I can
come up
with some
kids that will not recognize any Beatle song you put on the turntable, oh
I
mean the CD
player - wasn't their stuff re-issued on CD?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

--
Tom Phillips

wrote in message
...
I guess I'm going to end up being added to some more people's killfiles now
that
I've questioned whether or not the Beatles should belong in a history
book. I can
see iconoclasts are not welcomed here.

Iconoclasts are welcome, Steve. However, often it is the style in which one
dismisses or recommends that raises hackles. If a person gives a cheap
off-hand low shot then he's not showing much respect to the issue itself,
and if he praises without rationale, it is as bad. It's about respecting the
issue, the question, the subject. In this case, in my humble view, it's not
about the Beatles, but the phenonema of history, but really of Richard
Avedon - the thread.

It takes more than that to be kill filed, most in this group are
rather open minded. But if you really want to go that route I suggest you
study Michael's posting habits over the course of the last year and use
it as a game plan. Although nothing really is gained by making oneself a
thorn in the side of all here,...least not if you want to talk
intelligently about photography. Even Michael on occasion has something
of value, though it is usually copied line and verse from some arcane
photo text book from the 1920's.

In article ,
wrote:

I guess I'm going to end up being added to some more people's killfiles now
that
I've questioned whether or not the Beatles should belong in a history book.
I can
see iconoclasts are not welcomed here.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Read my previous posts. I never denied that Avedon was a historical figure. In fact
my argument was that his "legacy" is more of being a historical figure as part of the
'60s counter culture and I believe also Warhol's Factory than as an "artist". As for
the Beatles, I can't imagine people in a photo group putting them even in Avedon's
class. Photography has the power to change history. What kind of history have the
Beatles had any part in changing - other than possibly making R&B music more palatable
to white listeners and making tons of money in the process. And yes I do like some of
their songs, they play them on my local easy listening station from time to time.
Please also be more careful with the term "revisionism". That's one of the words I
try to avoid in any usenet post. If you want to know what I'm talking about, just
search the word on Google. It adds a sinister overtone to what really is a very
trivial discussion.

Tom Phillips wrote:

Big difference between a true iconoclast and someone who just offers
a revisionist view of history for the purpose of sophistical arguments
(i.e., attacking the well known, universally acknowledged significance
of various artists.)

Such revisionism is not iconoclasm. The view that Avedon was not a
great photographer is a matter of opinion; that he was significant
cannot be challenged. Likewisew, whether one likes the Beatles or not
their signifcance and influence simply cannot be challenged. True
iconoclasm would be challenging the *ideas* the Beatles influenced
society with, e.g., long hair styles or the concept that all you need
is love. That they were merely a run of the mill pop band is a
ridiculous revisionist statement.

As greg said, you simply have no credibility...

In article , wrote:

I guess I'm going to end up being added to some more people's killfiles now
that I've questioned whether or not the Beatles should belong in a history book.
book. I can see iconoclasts are not welcomed here.

Gregory Blank wrote:

Well I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt,
I must say though you have nothing credible to say in the
matter.

Hence forth you are to be viewed along the same lines as
Michael Scarpitti.

In article , wrote:

Please, let's not raise the Beatles up to historical significance. They
were
a pop
group that wrote a few good songs - nothing more. And I'm sure I can
come up
with some
kids that will not recognize any Beatle song you put on the turntable, oh
I
mean the CD
player - wasn't their stuff re-issued on CD?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

--
Tom Phillips

wrote in message
...
Read my previous posts. I never denied that Avedon was a historical
figure. In fact
my argument was that his "legacy" is more of being a historical figure as
part of the
'60s counter culture and I believe also Warhol's Factory than as an
"artist".

That is your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it, but no amount of
your opinion will change history or what is considered 'art'. May I suggest
you just get over your high opinion of 'art'?

As for
the Beatles, I can't imagine people in a photo group putting them even in
Avedon's
class. Photography has the power to change history.

I'm trying not to laugh out loud. Music has no effect in recent American
history? Tell me, please, how old are you and if you are over fifty, just
where the hell have you been all your life? I'm not saying it's the way
things outht to be, just how they are, for better or worse.

This is increasingly OT but...

wrote:
Read my previous posts. I never denied that Avedon was a historical figure.

We all read your post. You said he was shallow and was
"curious to see how well his work holds up over time now
that he's passed." News: Avedon was 80 years old and his
work has _already_ held up over time. It's already
recognized as influential. Where have you been for the
last 30 years? (rhetorical question); I studied his work
as required curriculum in college.

my argument was that his "legacy" is more of being a historical figure as part of the
'60s counter culture and I believe also Warhol's Factory than as an "artist". As for
the Beatles, I can't imagine people in a photo group putting them even in Avedon's
class. Photography has the power to change history. What kind of history have the
Beatles had any part in changing - other than possibly making R&B music more palatable
to white listeners and making tons of money in the process. And yes I do like some of
their songs, they play them on my local easy listening station from time to time.
Please also be more careful with the term "revisionism". That's one of the words I
try to avoid in any usenet post. If you want to know what I'm talking about, just
search the word on Google. It adds a sinister overtone to what really is a very
trivial discussion.

Don't need to do a search. I know revisionism when I see it.
Conversely, you need a history lesson. I happen to have lived in
the 60's. The counter culture was fueled by the new, powerful
musical forms and messages that the Beatles and others innovated.
For the first time, popular music that American youth listened to
carried political and social messages that influenced millions.
And the Beatles have sold *billions* of records. Thye are the most
widely played musical composers in history. Just goes to show your
ignorance of recent American culture and social history. If the
Beatles and other 60's artists had not recorded their music our
history would certainly be different than it is today. It's just
that simple.

Photography is also a powerful medium. Many photographers and
photographs have literally reshaped our understanding and view of
the world, events, and art. I could site endless examples, but
rest assured Avedon is among them to greater or lesser degree.
The beatles helped revolutionize our society, but they weren't
the only ones who did this. Bob Dylan (who himself was influenced
by the Beatles and carried on Woody Guthries legacy of social
activisim through music), Buffalo Springfield, Neil Young, Barry
McGuire, etc., all were powerful social voices and artists.

The fact is the music and counter culture of the 60's was a
revolution unparalleled in history. It's what got John Lennon
kicked out of the US and spyed on by the FBI. And it's amazing
you are completely ignorant of that. Now, you are entitled to
your opinion of Avedon's work and also the Beatles music. But
like I say, both have already stood the test of time and whether
you like it or not Avedon is and will remain an important
photographic artist. And 200 years from now when they talk about
American popular music, no one will mention the current commercial
crap produced by the music moguls. They'll cite the Beatles, Dylan,
etc.

Tom Phillips wrote:

Big difference between a true iconoclast and someone who just offers
a revisionist view of history for the purpose of sophistical arguments
(i.e., attacking the well known, universally acknowledged significance
of various artists.)

Such revisionism is not iconoclasm. The view that Avedon was not a
great photographer is a matter of opinion; that he was significant
cannot be challenged. Likewisew, whether one likes the Beatles or not
their signifcance and influence simply cannot be challenged. True
iconoclasm would be challenging the *ideas* the Beatles influenced
society with, e.g., long hair styles or the concept that all you need
is love. That they were merely a run of the mill pop band is a
ridiculous revisionist statement.

As greg said, you simply have no credibility...

In article , wrote:

I guess I'm going to end up being added to some more people's killfiles now
that I've questioned whether or not the Beatles should belong in a history book.
book. I can see iconoclasts are not welcomed here.

Gregory Blank wrote:

Well I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt,
I must say though you have nothing credible to say in the
matter.

Hence forth you are to be viewed along the same lines as
Michael Scarpitti.

In article , wrote:

Please, let's not raise the Beatles up to historical significance. They
were
a pop
group that wrote a few good songs - nothing more. And I'm sure I can
come up
with some
kids that will not recognize any Beatle song you put on the turntable, oh
I
mean the CD
player - wasn't their stuff re-issued on CD?

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

--
Tom Phillips


--
Tom Phillips

Led Zeppelin, The Doors, and certainly Elton John.

Photo has a much narrower following, photo people like Avedon are
remembered because they made print and frequently regardless
whether the general populous knows them. Having work in print
basically makes ones work accessible over history.

Case in point is one Leo Beachy whom I am indirectly
related not by blood but by marriage. He was a cripple
who was transported around western Maryland, he shot literally
1,000's of images using a view camera and glass plates.

Here's a little info on him.

http://www.gcnet.net/beachy/home.htm

I've seen some of his glass plate negatives first hand at my
mothers cousins house. basically his family carried him around the
mountains via wagon and horse back. When he died they tore down his
studio and darkroom and dumped 1O,000? of his now considered priceless
negatives into the stream bed. Probably 10% of his work survives.



In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

They'll cite the Beatles, Dylan,
etc.


--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:

Led Zeppelin, The Doors, and certainly Elton John.

Well, just for the purpose of esoteric OT: The Doors, Elton maybe.
Zeppelin never really innovated anything (the earlier Yardbirds
were more so...) Still Zeppelin was influential and the first two
albums are among my favorites (a friend of mine in '68 insisted
I had to listen to this new rock-blues group.) As good and popular
artists as groups like the Stones and Zeppelin were, all they
really did was take blues and rearrange it, musically speaking.
Cream was a much better group in my opine and innovative plus
influenced a thousand garage bands. Even Hendrix borrowed from
Cream...

The Beatles, BTW, ended up with songs like Yesterday and Eleanor
Rigby partly due to the influence of George Martin, who was a
classical/Beethoven fan.

Photo has a much narrower following, photo people like Avedon are
remembered because they made print and frequently regardless
whether the general populous knows them. Having work in print
basically makes ones work accessible over history.

Or a good business manager, as Adams did in Bill Turnage.

Case in point is one Leo Beachy whom I am indirectly
related not by blood but by marriage. He was a cripple
who was transported around western Maryland, he shot literally
1,000's of images using a view camera and glass plates.

Here's a little info on him.

http://www.gcnet.net/beachy/home.htm

An interesting unsung photographer. Thanks for the link.

I've seen some of his glass plate negatives first hand at my
mothers cousins house. basically his family carried him around the
mountains via wagon and horse back. When he died they tore down his
studio and darkroom and dumped 1O,000? of his now considered priceless
negatives into the stream bed. Probably 10% of his work survives.



In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

They'll cite the Beatles, Dylan,
etc.


--
Tom Phillips