Richard Avedon farewell

Read the exchange. I was cautioning the poster to avoid the word. Using the word in any
Usenet discussion calls attention to said discussion to the "wrong" sort of individuals. This
is *not* the same as using the word in ordinary conversation. He then came back at me saying
that he was cognizant of the prevalent use of the word i.e. that he didn't have to "Google" it
to see what I was talking about, and that I was guilty of using the word in that context. I am
not guilty of historical "re-visionism" no matter how you define the term and I take offense at
it even being applied. I'm sure that the Beatles were enjoyed by millions in the '60s and are
even enjoyed by some retro young people today - not the ones I encounter mind you - but I'm
sure there are some that can be found. Saying that they do not belong in a history book does
not qualify one for that kind of attack. I never said that they didn't exist or that they
didn't become fabulously rich off of their record sales. I've repeatedly said that I enjoy
their music. I can't help but take a few sarcastic "cheap shots" since Baby Boomers take the
Beatles so seriously, it is just too tempting to take a few shots at them. I would hardly
refer to this as trolling but just ribbing, which did not call for the attack I received. I
had stopped posting on this, but as your message directly addresses me, I had to respond.

McLeod wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:05:48 GMT, wrote:

No it's you who needs the history lesson. How can you equate questioning the "historical"
significance of the Beatles to denying the holocaust?

You need reading lessons or a better education. Since when did the
word "revisionism" become solely related to the holocaust?

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:03:34 GMT, wrote:

Read the exchange. I was cautioning the poster to avoid the word. Using the word in any
Usenet discussion calls attention to said discussion to the "wrong" sort of individuals. This
is *not* the same as using the word in ordinary conversation. He then came back at me saying
that he was cognizant of the prevalent use of the word i.e. that he didn't have to "Google" it
to see what I was talking about, and that I was guilty of using the word in that context. I am
not guilty of historical "re-visionism" no matter how you define the term and I take offense at
it even being applied. I'm sure that the Beatles were enjoyed by millions in the '60s and are
even enjoyed by some retro young people today - not the ones I encounter mind you - but I'm
sure there are some that can be found.

(bunch of other weaselly crap cut out)

Saying the Beatles would have no place in history is revisionist,
whether you like the word or not. It's too bad that you feel attacked
by other people taking that position but that says more about you than
them.
Revisionism, revisionism, revisionist, revise. Ooops, no bogey man
appeared!!

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:03:34 GMT, wrote:

Read the exchange. I was cautioning the poster to avoid the word. Using the word in any
Usenet discussion calls attention to said discussion to the "wrong" sort of individuals. This
is *not* the same as using the word in ordinary conversation. He then came back at me saying
that he was cognizant of the prevalent use of the word i.e. that he didn't have to "Google" it
to see what I was talking about, and that I was guilty of using the word in that context. I am
not guilty of historical "re-visionism" no matter how you define the term and I take offense at
it even being applied. I'm sure that the Beatles were enjoyed by millions in the '60s and are
even enjoyed by some retro young people today - not the ones I encounter mind you - but I'm
sure there are some that can be found.

(bunch of other weaselly crap cut out)

Saying the Beatles would have no place in history is revisionist,
whether you like the word or not. It's too bad that you feel attacked
by other people taking that position but that says more about you than
them.
Revisionism, revisionism, revisionist, revise. Ooops, no bogey man
appeared!!

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:03:34 GMT, wrote:

Saying the Beatles would have no place in history is revisionist,
whether you like the word or not. [...]

Technically, it is not revisionist. Revisionism is not a flat denial that
something belongs in history, but a _system_ of argument that denies the
accepted history as evinced in voliminous, common evidence or assertion.

Saying that something "has no place in history" is just plain stupid when
the history has already been made.

"McLeod" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:03:34 GMT, wrote:

Saying the Beatles would have no place in history is revisionist,
whether you like the word or not. [...]

Technically, it is not revisionist. Revisionism is not a flat denial that
something belongs in history, but a _system_ of argument that denies the
accepted history as evinced in voliminous, common evidence or assertion.

Saying that something "has no place in history" is just plain stupid when
the history has already been made.

wrote:

Read the exchange. I was cautioning the poster to avoid the word. Using the word in any
Usenet discussion calls attention to said discussion to the "wrong" sort of individuals. This
is *not* the same as using the word in ordinary conversation. He then came back at me saying
that he was cognizant of the prevalent use of the word i.e. that he didn't have to "Google" it
to see what I was talking about, and that I was guilty of using the word in that context. I am
not guilty of historical "re-visionism" no matter how you define the term and I take offense at
it even being applied. I'm sure that the Beatles were enjoyed by millions in the '60s and are
even enjoyed by some retro young people today - not the ones I encounter mind you - but I'm
sure there are some that can be found. Saying that they do not belong in a history book does
not qualify one for that kind of attack. I never said that they didn't exist or that they
didn't become fabulously rich off of their record sales. I've repeatedly said that I enjoy
their music. I can't help but take a few sarcastic "cheap shots" since Baby Boomers take the
Beatles so seriously, it is just too tempting to take a few shots at them. I would hardly
refer to this as trolling but just ribbing, which did not call for the attack I received. I
had stopped posting on this, but as your message directly addresses me, I had to respond.

McLeod wrote:

On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:05:48 GMT, wrote:

No it's you who needs the history lesson. How can you equate questioning the "historical"
significance of the Beatles to denying the holocaust?

You need reading lessons or a better education. Since when did the
word "revisionism" become solely related to the holocaust?

Since steven brought the holocaust up for no reason other than
to justify his arguments and revisionist history...

O.K., let's read the exchange. For the record, what steve said was:

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.

Which is total revisionist B.S. The Beatles changed history, period.
They didn't intend to, but they did. Making comparisons is irrelevant.
Steve is playing upon the fallacy of emotion by making comparisons
between an overwhelming historical horror and a less significant
historical event. Of course the Beatles can not be equated with the
holocaust. But both are history nevertheless.

Also neither the significance of the Beatles or Avedon as artists
(which also constitutes history) can be credibly challenged.

From the American Heritage Dictionary on CD:

"revisionism n. 1. Advocacy of the revision of an accepted, usually
long-standing view, theory, or doctrine, especially a revision of
historical events and movements."

The Beatles were both a historical event and a musical/social
movement.

Tom Phillips wrote in message ...
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.

I think that any photo teacher who requires you to 'study' any
particular photographer's work ought to be shot. It's absurd and shows
that the teacher is an incompetent moron. Far better would be to study
periods and a wide variety of work. Besides, the student taking such a
class should have enough curiosity to look at a lot of published work
on his own.

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.

I would say Dylan and Baez and Peter Paul and Mary were far more
influential intellectually before 1966. Jefferson Airplane were
important from 1967 to about 1969, along with the Rolling Stones and
the Moody Blues. The Beatles put down the New Left quite spectacularly
with 'Revolution No. 9'.

For the first time, popular music that American youth listened to
carried political and social messages that influenced millions.

Mostly inane and stupid New Left bull****, but influential, to be
sure.

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.

The Beatles were British, not American.

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.

True.

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.

.....and today we're still dealing with this idiotic legacy....

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 in message ...
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.

I think that any photo teacher who requires you to 'study' any
particular photographers work ought to be shot. It's absurd and shows
that the teacher is an incompetent moron. Far better would be to study
periods and a wide variety of work. Besides, the student taking such a
class should have enough curiosity to look at a lot of published work
on his own.

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.

I would say Dylan and Baez and Peter Paul and Mary were far more
influential intellectually before 1966. Jefferson Airplane were
important from 1967 to about 1969, along with the Rolling Stones and
the Moody Blues. The Beatles put down the New Left quite spectacularly
with 'Revolution No. 9'.

For the first time, popular music that American youth listened to
carried political and social messages that influenced millions.

Mostly inane and stupid New Left bull****, but influential, to be
sure.

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.

The Beatles were British, not American.

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.

True.

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.

.....and today we're still dealing with this idiotic legacy....

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.

(Collin Brendemuehl) wrote in message . com...
To study another's work is not necessarily a bad thing.
That's why we read philosophers who have had an influence on the
world.
Personally, I've read Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schaeffer, Bible, Koran, and
lots more.
(And, I'm an unapologetic evangelical.) Viewing photographers in the
same way is important. Unfortuantely that's not always the case.

The question about the work should be "What is the statement here?"
rather
than "What is the style here?". If it is the latter, then I agree
fully.
If the former, then we have an opportunity to learn.

Now that film photography/art is fading somewhat because of digital,
it's important that it not be reduced to a bunch of old folks shooting
closeups of flowers (like little old ladies paintings of the same old
flowere at every art show). No thinking is being taught, only
technique.
Art often gets replaced by craft and that's sad.

So, everyone ...

Think before you shoot. Shoot with intent. Say something!

Specificity in message content IS so often insisted upon by most
everyone, from critics, to historians, and teachers. Avedon himself in
a video I saw admonishes a youngster at a critique to do just that.
Yet I personally remain at odds with the idea of saying something if
by that one means it literally. If I could say it, I would choose
writing or speech. Ambiguity is considered vague, weak, even
antisocial. An attack on the value of language. Why so, I wonder,
when all of nature "speaks" to me? Every nuance has its own "voice".
If my intuition draws me to a composition, and I present the image
with depth and feeling, why insist on more? If I make a painting with
gesture and color alone ( and I do paint, and will work on a piece for
sometimes..years before it speaks to me ), Why should that
conglomeration be considered insipid?

My feeling is that the social structure abhors the idea of working in
a vaccume ( impossible really ) and not communicating to one another
with mutually agreed upon meaning. And further, does not have a very
well developed capacity TO hear or appreciate the message that is not
literal, or an answer, or a direction, or a comment on predecesors. Or
most important of all, to those whose living depends on it,
MARKETABLE. Yet there are an enormous amount of creators these days,
who will never find an audience. They are the "new" artists, who have
simply incorporated the value of doing the thing for its own sake. For
their own sake. I would call that a step up, not a degradation of the
meaningfullness of art.

I was very moved by a Rothko show once, in the dim lighting of LA's
Contemporary Arts Museum, but no words would adequately or as
pleasurably express my experience. Is'nt that really the definition of
great art? Can you imagine how absurd it would be to say " Well, what,
exactly are you trying to say here Mark?" My apologies to the poster
if THAT actually is what you mean by saying something, and you do not
mean he should literally have a message that can be explained, i.e.
the orange is the firiery self, and blue, the transcendent heaven. Yet
you must also realise that alot of people do insist on answers, and
cannot imagine the value of nature void of a hierarchy, or of an
artist who has a developed sensitivity to their materials but cannot
be slotted into a dull statement/ credo, due to their disdain of
preconcieved ideas and explainations. Religion also especially fails
me when the whole of the cosmos is reduced to a human melodrama/
morality play.

Regardless of what one shoots, the challenge of making it
penetrating, if acheived, might be reached from any number of
approaches, stylistic, technically, even accidentally. If it is indeed
truely penetrating, and not just to the maker, then what more is it
supposed to be? If a guide in how to be human and live ones life, then
I would include a little more silence, and a suspension of self so
intent on knowing. KS