<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Problem with Postmodernism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/07/10/the_problem_with_postmodernism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/07/10/the_problem_with_postmodernism/</link>
	<description>Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:49:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Walter Dufresne</title>
		<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/07/10/the_problem_with_postmodernism/comment-page-1/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>Walter Dufresne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:37:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/07/10/the_problem_with_postmodernism/#comment-91</guid>
		<description>It is not clear that a photograph can ever be anything other than a tendentious opinion about the world.  That is a &quot;first principle&quot; for some current artists, especially the ones who agree with Walker Evans&#039;s old assertion that *all* photographs lie.

Papageorge speaks clearly and precisely about an issue addressed a few decades ago by the American photographer Nicholas Nixon.  Nixon was both succinct and modest when he said that &quot;the world is infinitely more interesting than any of my opinions about it.&quot;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is not clear that a photograph can ever be anything other than a tendentious opinion about the world.  That is a "first principle" for some current artists, especially the ones who agree with Walker Evans's old assertion that *all* photographs lie.</p>
<p>Papageorge speaks clearly and precisely about an issue addressed a few decades ago by the American photographer Nicholas Nixon.  Nixon was both succinct and modest when he said that "the world is infinitely more interesting than any of my opinions about it."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Levin</title>
		<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/07/10/the_problem_with_postmodernism/comment-page-1/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Levin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 04:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/07/10/the_problem_with_postmodernism/#comment-90</guid>
		<description>Great stuff. Words to live by, and shoot by, Todd&#039;s: &quot;...how much richer in surprise and creative possibility the world is for photographers in comparison to their imagination.&quot;

Put another way, here&#039;s a quote from another great photographer, John Gossage, describing &quot;...what we [photographers] are all up to--bringing back what has stunned us in the real world.&quot;

Or, as Richard himself wrote in 2005, there is &quot;a well-established artistic tradition. It has two basic premises. 1) On the whole, the world is a mess, visually speaking. 2) If you know how to look at it, that&#039;s not such a bad thing.

&quot;Photographers who share this view, and they have included some very great ones, like Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander and William Eggleston, remember that the act of looking--looking intensely--explodes any settled expectations about what it is you are looking at.

&quot;They also know that you can pursue that understanding into even the least promising corners...and come back with something you never imagined before. Let the record show that &#039;something you never imagined before&#039; is one good definition of art.&quot;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great stuff. Words to live by, and shoot by, Todd's: "...how much richer in surprise and creative possibility the world is for photographers in comparison to their imagination."</p>
<p>Put another way, here's a quote from another great photographer, John Gossage, describing "...what we [photographers] are all up to--bringing back what has stunned us in the real world."</p>
<p>Or, as Richard himself wrote in 2005, there is "a well-established artistic tradition. It has two basic premises. 1) On the whole, the world is a mess, visually speaking. 2) If you know how to look at it, that's not such a bad thing.</p>
<p>"Photographers who share this view, and they have included some very great ones, like Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander and William Eggleston, remember that the act of looking--looking intensely--explodes any settled expectations about what it is you are looking at.</p>
<p>"They also know that you can pursue that understanding into even the least promising corners...and come back with something you never imagined before. Let the record show that 'something you never imagined before' is one good definition of art."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A. Rodchenko</title>
		<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/07/10/the_problem_with_postmodernism/comment-page-1/#comment-89</link>
		<dc:creator>A. Rodchenko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:51:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/07/10/the_problem_with_postmodernism/#comment-89</guid>
		<description>Bollocks.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bollocks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
