Many museums do not collect digital produced work, so that might be an answer. On Mar 4, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Randy Little wrote: So what here the dadaist like heartfeld?
On Mar 4, 2014 11:26 AM, < PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx> wrote:
The questions must be separated. Some curators ask how to redefine what a
photography is. To me the definition hasn't changed- lens-photosensitive
capture.
The question of how the new uses of photography effect the culture and
the community is a cultural-social question.
Roy
In a message dated 3/3/2014 12:35:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jan@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I attended, and some alarm bells rang, but not like they would
now.
On Mar 3, 2014, at 11:30 AM, John Palcewski wrote:
"A few years ago, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art held a
conference about photography – for a photo conference, it had the odd title
“Is Photography Over?.” Curators Sandra Phillips and Dominic Wilsdon posed
the question as a challenge to panelists, audience members and the world at
large. The two-day symposium was an attempt to shake up conventional
institutionalized discourses about photography and to be an opportunity to
think about what, if anything, has “changed” about photography over the last
decade or so." Read the whole thing here: http://bit.ly/1hBMoUA
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly
Known as Prints
------
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints ------ Camera Works - The Washington Post
.
|
