For the arty part, the approach is totally different as the medium is irrelevant. Is considered as arty what the art market considers as such, i.e. what is bankable.
Who are those you call "serious photographers"?
... I was standing next to one of my own prints hanging in an all medium public non juried art show. My print was of a still life with wire arrangement, shot on 8x10 and printed in platinum. A woman walked up and looked at it because it had won a blue ribbon and not knowing I was the photographer she commented to me with a scoff, "but that is something anyone could have done" ...
My answer would have been: "Yes. but they didn't!"
Crop it, frame it, don't tell them a monkey took it, and someone could sell it as "art".
blansky,
i couldn't agree more there are people who like to take photographs and there are "photographers"
as dennis agreed with " anyone cold have done it" but as david said " they didn't "
a "photographer" is what they used to call a "trail blazer" or a "bushwhacker" ...
these days they break new ground, then they sit back an others do the same and post their images on flickr...( or FB )
then programmers figure out how to make something look l ike that, and make the plug in to mimic it.
as long as you can read the swedish or danish instructions you too can make a faux gum over plainotype
If the monkey can do that great, he made art. I suspect not. If someone wants to present the monkey's picture as art, it is that person's art, not the monkey's or traffic camera's or googlemap cam's art.
The other expression out there is one takes a photograph and one makes a photograph.
But like I said earlier, to me it's all down to motive and intent. One person wants a snapshot and the other wants something more.
If the monkey can do that great, he made art. I suspect not. If someone wants to present the monkey's picture as art, it is that person's art, not the monkey's or traffic camera's or googlemap cam's art.
blansky,
If there are history books published as feminist lesbian history of george washington , you can give medal to blind photographer also..
umut
An interesting example, but if I had created that exact image and submitted it to Sotheby's, they would have replied that is was just a snapshot without merit. Having already submitted images to Sotheby's, which were taken by a very well known photographer, I know exactly how that works. It has everything to do with provenance,the photographer's reputation, and previous sales history, and nothing to do with the image itself. The tricycle is a good example of that. It is after all . . . just a snapshot.
I feel the same way about everything Picasso has done. He was a charlatan in a community of sycophants. Again, in a double blind test put his lesser known "work" among those drawn by 5-year olds. See what gets chosen as being great.
HAHA. Picasso was great! And you must be blind not to see it.
An interesting example, but if I had created that exact image and submitted it to Sotheby's, they would have replied that is was just a snapshot without merit. Having already submitted images to Sotheby's, which were taken by a very well known photographer, I know exactly how that works. It has everything to do with provenance,the photographer's reputation, and previous sales history, and nothing to do with the image itself. The tricycle is a good example of that. It is after all . . . just a snapshot.
Here's a link to a 2012 sale of the Tricycle (untitled), if not already posted.
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/photographs/william-eggleston-untitled-1970-5536850-details.aspx
It makes me wonder how somebody valuates a 44x60 inch piece of paper @ $578,000. I sure hope it's is archival to some degree. I would hate be the buyer left holding the bag, the buyer that chose to hold on to it too long, when it starts to noticeably yellow and fade.
Though, on some levels I do like the image. Being a 60's child myself, it brings back many memories of my youth. So, $57.80 is my final offer. ;-)
The angle, the strength of the tricycle, the suburbia, the colors, perhaps the nostalgia, everything makes this a great picture. And sometimes you get the obvious, "shit, why didn't shoot it like that" aspect as well.
of art.
But there are thousands if not tens of thousands of photos like that and which capture that suburban nostalgia - though I'll grant that nearly all won't be at that angle or perspective. Even so, the point is that that exact photo, if submitted by the late Fred A. Fotoman instead of Eggleston, would go nowhere.
I understand your point about context, and agree with it to some extent, but ultimately the photo, painting, sculpture, or other act has to be judged on its own merit. Otherwise, and I hope this isn't the case, if I take a pencil and put an "X" on a piece of paper, it's worth $0.00, but if Picasso makes that same "X", it's worth thousands. In that case, it's not the work itself that has value, but the fame of the artist.
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?