There's a lot of confusion going on here about technique and style. Technique is something that others, with enough skill and/or practice, can easily master. Style, on the other hand, is when a set of techniques is incorporated in such a way that when combined with the photographer's vision, it becomes invisible. Technique without style is obvious, and this is the problem with Borges' work. A good example of very unusual technique that disappears completely in the final work can be seen in the photographs of Ortiz-Echague. It's also very much a component of the work of great painters. After 30 of Picasso's paintings (I went to a Picasso museum in the south of France a few years ago where this is a possibility), one doesn't think at all about what we think of as Picasso's technique - it isn't even relevant.(posted 8708 days ago)I'm convinced that Tom Meyer could go out and recreate Borges' work with no problem. I'm also convinced that Tom could do better, as evidenced in some of Tom's photos, such as his Halloween series, which have an obvious technique yet transcend the technique.
Borges is obviously a talented photographer, and tremendous respect for his motives, as anyone familiar with my politics would know, but I think the two books (I got review copies) and the exhibit just don't make it.