9-8-95
This note constitutes the second continuation of the commentary on the findings of the working group for a National Policy on artistic photography.
The anonymous author of the findings adopts criteria based on which one can be considered an artist or not. Beyond the fact that this is useless, it is also dangerous when included in a document that will become a policy directive. Moreover, no criterion can be applied universally, especially when the criterion set by the author of the findings is as nebulous as the following: "An artistic or pictorial photographic work" (note: the identification is intentional, I assume) "is primarily that which exhibits certain artistic claims" and continues, "this definition has the virtue of simplicity: it immediately excludes anything not created with artistic intent." (Photographer friends, boldly declare the artistic intent of each of your photos. It may be necessary).
However, the author of this lengthy treatise seems particularly fond of distinctions, because further down, he attempts to distinguish between professional artists and amateur artists. Note: not professional or amateur photographers, that is, those earning a living from it or not. Such a thing would also be useless, arbitrary, and incorrect, though logically understandable. For instance, we would not consider a professional diplomat, like Seferis, to be an amateur poet. In this case, however, the author refers disparagingly and vaguely to amateur engagement. The seriousness of a creator, however, is judged by their work alone. It would suffice to submit it to a committee without further characterization. Yet the distinction was made maliciously, since it follows that the "amateurs" should not receive financial support from the State. Needless to say, we do not propose reliable criteria for who is an amateur. The distinction that allows anyone to exclude whomever they want is sufficient.
The self-serving logic of the findings goes further. Unwilling, or unable, to ignore the private entities across the country engaged in artistic photography (although I fear it would prefer to abolish them immediately, or gradually as it seems to be attempting, so that all power would revert to the governmental or semi-governmental and controlled bodies), it proceeds to further, unjustified, and suspicious distinctions.
It creates two categories of entities. In the first, it places the (serious) "artistic" entities and in the second, the others... In the second, it categorizes arbitrarily characterized "amateur clubs" and in the first, four entities, whose founders (and current officials) are members of the working group that drafted the evaluated findings (!). I think you will have already understood that any direct financial support should be limited, according to the findings, to these serious (?) artistic entities. Note moreover that those who are "active" from these entities have already been subsidized by the Minister of Culture before and after the publication of the findings.
Next week will continue this new and now customary Greek-style arbitrariness.
Plato Rivellis