Photoblogs & Fotologs
There was an article in Sunday's New York Times called Prospecting for Gold Among the Photoblogs; I read it with interest, hoping to see some of my favorite sites mentioned and to learn about a few new ones.
Unfortunately, the article focused mostly on the photos that the author didn't like rather than the ones she did. Am I wrong in thinking that the NYT takes more pleasure in pointing out the dangers/idiocy/banality of blogging than blogging's pearls of wisdom, its power to inform and connect, its art? Someday, I hope to see fewer articles about Times reporters getting lost on the web and a new column covering text, photo, and art blogs (and other variations that might someday emerge) worth reading/viewing. Given that a good chunk of the Times' circulation is outside of the New York area, an article about worthwhile places to visit in cyberspace are could be more useful to far-flung readers than the current listings of New York gallery and theater openings. Just a thought.
Comments (1)
Why would anyone waste their time writing about photos they didn't like in photoblogs. It's not as if the writer were at a gallery opening being coaxed into spending hundreds of dollars for a photograph.
That just seems plain silly to me. Maybe I'm just a banal, dangerous, idiot. Can I get paid for that?
Posted by Simon | May 28, 2003 6:59 AM
Posted on May 28, 2003 06:59