With respect to Eisler, I feel she is from the golden age of Freudian,
universal frames of reference. Her sexually graphic descriptions of his
nudes as some kind of twisted pornography speak volumes about Eisler but
say very little about Steiglitz.
Also, to say that creativity is some form of madness (In a negative
sense) thus painting all creatives with the same brush, is disingenuous.
I believe we are driven by our own personal dynamics. I doubt whether
Robert Mapplethorpe was propelled by the same forces as Ansel Adams?
Herschel
On 8/31/11 1:51 PM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
I am convinced this is her thesis. Maybe she should ask him. And even
if she could - or did had she the opportunity before he passed - we'd
have to take his response as given...like his images. I envision a
book down the pipes; it will be expensive and be purchased with
deferred interest for four years, after which it will continue to
accrue and increase in value long after it's out of print, or the 7th
edition is replaced by a new idea.
On 8/31/11 9:48 PM, John Palcewski wrote:
But what about the various "psychological
needs" that Eisler says drove Stieglitz? Doesn't this suggest that
creativity is a form of madness?
