Okey-doke.
The mistake people make is thinking that copying a $140 million radical style will bring them closer to what people and the market wants. Its like playing the lottery, having heard that most jackpot winners have played the lottery all their life, and ignoring a much larger majority who lost all their money doing the same thing. The one and only Jackson Pollock became famous for doing his own thing. There were probably others like him who never made a cent. Actually majority of others became broke doing the same thing but you never hear about them.
Another artist could crumple up a piece of paper at a public event, with all eyes/media on him, and make a fortune for being the first to do so. That piece of paper can win fame for being that piece of paper during that public event. You will fail doing the same thing and will become very depressed about yourself for trying this.
So for all of us who aren't Jackson Pollocks, the medium and materials are important as nobody cares about your ideas and your useless style unless somebody sponsors and publicizes you. So it better be a C-print, Silver Gelatin, or color carbon print made with digital printers. If selling inkjet, one can always find a better stock image for under $1 and send it to Walmart print center to get it ink-jetted.
I asked Chat GPT-4 to interpret what this person said:
View attachment 349128
View attachment 349129
and it did so for free:
View attachment 349127
Don't you love technology?
true photography
What makes something a photograph? Is the paper it's on? Is it the device that was used? Is it the subject? Can it be on a lcd display? When you look through a photo book, say by Bresson, you are not seeing physical silver-gelatin prints. You are seeing reproductions of them - perhaps very good ones. Maybe the book you are looking at was made from digital scans of prints - maybe even from digital scans of negatives. But when you look, is that what you're looking at or are you looking at the content and composition of the image?
Anything you say about ink drops on digital photography paper (or however you phrased it) is as true for dye-clouds or silver grain clusters.
It is romanticism to see physical "touching" of reflected light in film photography: the light that touched the subject touched the film, changed the film, and gets "reborn" by enlarging. Contrasting this with data produced by a digital sensor emphasizes that romanticism. In cold practical terms, there is no fundamental difference: the process abandons the subject and provides a record.
There is nothing like holding a silver gelatin print in ones hands.
you are always aware that anybody can buy one of billions of high-res stock images online for under $1, give it the "film look" or some other look and send it out to Walmart print-center for ink-jetting, or one of thousands master ink-jetters in the city.
Because their customers care about
Ok I started a new thread on this topic, probably more appropriate not to keep ranting here:What makes something a photograph?
Not sure what universe you live in, but a high-res stiock photo will cost significantly more than $1 plus it has no collector value, only decorative. Most stock licenses will not allow you to resell that image, printed by Walmart or on a T-Shirt or mug.
It always amazes me that folks go on and on about art or the value of a photograph or claim that a photograph is not a photograph if it is digital or printed digitally, yet have never sold or purchased one. Many don't even print. as far as I can tell. A lot of grandstanding IMO.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?