The lack of knowledgeability of the art critics in regard to photography does not stop with them; it is transmitted to both the audience and the artists. Such a situation is not merely regrettable, but damaging to all concerned. […]
The lack of knowledgeability of the art critics in regard to photography does not stop with them; it is transmitted to both the audience and the artists. Such a situation is not merely regrettable, but damaging to all concerned. […] The contrast between the world outside the hospital, where the physically well cannot find relief from emotional pain, and the world inside the second of Julio Mitchel’s “Two Wards,” is the photographer’s major point. It emerges from neither of these two essays separately; it is created by their combination. […] These are not cheerful photographs. They are direct, and specific metaphors for what would seem to be a profound and prolonged suffering which encompasses impotence, fear, deprivation, and loss. Their power resides in the preciseness with which they describe not merely what the eye has seen but what their maker has experienced. […] In response to the fanciful notion that the appropriations have somehow improved the market value of the works in question, it seems no less plausible to me that the precedent set by the court’s approval of Mr. Prince’s usages would encourage others to follow his example by appropriating these and other works by these photographers, thus devaluing not only these two images but putting at risk the entirety of their creative output. […] This raises another question broached by Brian Wallis — his assertion that, as a general principle, “comment” automatically constitutes an “alteration” even when said “comment” comprises nothing more than what Mr. Prince acknowledges is “gobblygook” (sic). If even incomprehensible prose inherently represents the activity we call “commenting,” then all speech qualifies as commentary, in which case the “comment” requirement of the “fair use” exception becomes meaningless. […] |