I think one thing that is more problematic is the image, rather than the
nature.
http://www.jimcolephoto.com/
These are some of the blandest images I've seen lately.
Another considerastion is the guy can't seem to write an intelligent
artist's statement. I googled around. Pretty worthless.
More to the point, though, I was watching something between football halves
on local tv. A group of amateur artists is gradually protecting acres and
acres of coastline. They hike there and paint two days a week, and then
sell their (pretty terrible) paintings, donating 1/2 the money to buying
more land. On the surface: hey, great. But then, I thought, but wait --
they control who goes there. In the same way, in some of our larger public
parks, where people can go is strictly controlled. Making images of or
doing research in certain areas is strictly controlled, because then people
might want to go there.
So that's part of radical ecology -- protecting nature from us, and v.v. --
I'm never decided about. Protected from *almost* everyone, by *whom* for
what reasons.
<http://www.jimcolephoto.com/>
--
All best,
Catherine Daly
[log in to unmask]
|