Just a few comments on the recent forum controversy...

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
panos_m
Senior MemberPosts: 1,226
Like?
Re: 1/2, perhaps
In reply to Toccata47, Mar 31, 2013

Toccata47 wrote:

panos_m wrote:

Toccata47 wrote:

The sad fact of photography and wealth is that wealthy photographers have historically been responsible for 0.0% of great photography. I challenge posters to prove otherwise.

I know two:

  • Henri Cartier-Bresson
  • Jacques Henri Lartigue
-- hide signature --

Panagiotis

Bresson was famously poor.

Bresson's father had a company named Cartier-Bresson Textile. He was very wealthy. There is plenty of information in the internet about this.

Lartigue's merit could well be debated and to my mind he leans more toward an early "model mayhem" than an Avendon. An early photographer with access to people other people wanted to look at, at the time. Lasting value or meaningful contribution to photography? No, I don't think so. But to each his own.

Lartigue was a natural born photography talent. He is mentioned in detail in every class about the history of photography I am aware off. At least where I live. So I consider his contribution meaningful and of a lasting value.

-- hide signature --

Panagiotis

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow