Photographic Value

warden · Jan 27, 2012

CGW said:
Hard to get much notice at the bank from "good" alone. That a few amateur judges at a camera club competition or an online site rate an image as "good" is way less gratifying than selling prints on a regular basis.

Does your response have anything at all to do with mine? I didn't mention banks, clubs, etc. so I'm not sure what you're on about.

My post was about the ridiculousness of the lecturer's position, that is all.

cliveh · Jan 27, 2012

jnanian said:
i wouldn't say he was a hobbyist, but when VVG painted the paintings they were worthless, no one would give him anything for them, so by the standards set by
the OP's lecturer it is true the paintings were BAD ART. it was only time and the evolution of the modern world that changed van gogh's paintings into good art...

How can bad art change to good art? Their artistic standard is surely the same as when they were painted, only their monetary value has changed.

CGW · Jan 27, 2012

cliveh said:
How can bad art change to good art? Their artistic standard is surely the same as when they were painted, only their monetary value has changed.

The fact they were initially all but ignored suggests otherwise. Difficult to argue that critical consensus didn't determine their value--whether then or now. The concepts of "good" and "bad" art are a bit troubling. Sounds a bit like "entartete kunst."

spacer · Jan 27, 2012

I think folks are approaching this in different directions, based on their definition of "value"... a word that only really has whatever meaning is given to it in context. If the OP means "monetary" value, then the statement is absolutely correct. Will a third party move in and force the buyer to pay some arbitrary sum, having decreed that somehow their subjective definition of "beauty" has been met (say, hanging elephant dung from the ceiling for a hefty subsidy)? If not, then it really is what the buyer is willing to pay, provided the seller is also willing.
Personal and emotional value is something else entirely, and not even in the same ballpark. I think there's a lot of unnecessary argument over a word that can be defined so many ways depending on context.
I have photos of my family that I value highly, but they're not "worth" any more than anyone is willing to pay.
Doesn't bother me a bit, because in the end, they belong to me.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 27, 2012

Imagine an undiscovered work by Leonardo DaVinci. Is it not art until it's discovered, so that a monetary value can be placed on it?
Will it have no value until greedy investors can sink their talons into it?
This whole idea that a work of art has to have ANY monetary value at all to qualify as art is so ridiculous that I want to cry, or shake somebody by their foundation. It's such an ugly way to see the world.

What do you tell somebody who's been a painter for twenty years, but who doesn't have the ambition to sell his/her work? Their work isn't art because there is no price tag? Give me a break.

zsas · Jan 27, 2012

cliveh said:
Many years ago I attended a lecture by a photographer who claimed that a photograph could only be rated as a good photograph by how much people were prepared to pay for it. I could not understand that viewpoint, any thoughts?

Who said this? Was s/he dead serious or merely talking about the gallery system? If it was a public lecture do tell who it was. I think the above unattributed quote is so vague and sniped from a larger point that it is pointless for us to debate a comment, possibly snide and/or satirical. I think you need more clarity in your post because it just causes vague'isms to be expressed then further debated. I will have no part.

cliveh · Jan 27, 2012

zsas said:
Who said this? Was s/he dead serious or merely talking about the gallery system? If it was a public lecture do tell who it was. I think the above unattributed quote is so vague and sniped from a larger point that it is pointless for us to debate a comment, possibly snide and/or satirical. I think you need more clarity in your post because it just causes vague'isms to be expressed then further debated. I will have no part.

Zsas/Andy, I am not trying to be vague here, but this was about 15 years ago and I really can't remember who said it. It was nothing to do with a gallery system and it was someone from the RPS. I apoligise if you think my original post is snide and/or satirical, as this was not my intent. However, I thought such a comment worthy of debate.

zsas · Jan 27, 2012

cliveh said:
....I thought such a comment worthy of debate.

I believe, something along these lines is worthy debate when properly framed and not entirely vague. In my opinion, you have done the equivalent of "forwarding an urban legend email" to your friends and family and merely said, I dont agree with this; then hit send and watch them bicker it out....

The problem lies in the attribution, who said this? Why? These are often the problem with urban legends and half truths and vague comments on internet forums. Was this persons comment as a snide commentary on the gallery system or did this esteemed lecturer really believe this? If we read the minutes of the lecture then I would be able to comment better. Therefore, I wont have any part debating the merits of the comment that I believe is sniped from the lectures larger point. I doubt he got on the stage said this one line and sat back down

I think it is irresponsible to post for debate with out a clearly defined ethical/philosophic question, not some someone said something vague related to art and photography; otherwise we all get riled up, unless that was your motive. I dont think your original post was snide/satirical; but I believe it was written in such a vague manner and then thrown to the wolves

CGW · Jan 27, 2012

What do you tell somebody who's been a painter for twenty years, but who doesn't have the ambition to sell his/her work? Their work isn't art because there is no price tag? Give me a break.

Find a new hobby? If their energy, budget, and wall space hold out and they enjoy it, who cares? Maybe no one wants to buy it? Tell me you don't know someone like this?

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 27, 2012

CGW said:
What do you tell somebody who's been a painter for twenty years, but who doesn't have the ambition to sell his/her work? Their work isn't art because there is no price tag? Give me a break.

Find a new hobby? If their energy, budget, and wall space hold out and they enjoy it, who cares? Maybe no one wants to buy it? Tell me you don't know someone like this?

No!

Art that's focused on commerce has no soul, and is advertising more than anything.

I find your view incredibly sad and insulting to the whole arts community. There is more to life and the arts than a f-ing price tag.

removed account4 · Jan 27, 2012

cliveh said:
How can bad art change to good art? Their artistic standard is surely the same as when they were painted, only their monetary value has changed.

he killedhimself in the late 1800s.
the world of painting was going through a type of upheaval.
there were using different paints than before, and from the mid to late 1870s
there were others like vangogh who were painting quite differently than "the etablishment"
pointalism, impressionism, fauvism, expressionism ( german ), and a whole group of other styles
emerged and the art establishment and gallery owners and people commissioning artwork didn't really know what to think
when they saw his work.
after his death in around 1900 to maybe 1910 there were shows mounted in paris, and amsterdam and other places
where his work hung with other modern painters, and his work at that point was seen in a different light.
it took 10-15 years after his death for the world to accept what he did and accept it as "GOOD".
when he was painting, from what i remember, he traded his brother a few paintings for $$ and his brother reluctantly paid him.

i wouldn't say he wasn't producing art, but "the establishment" didn't accept it as " good art "

good or bad they are just opinions. you can find the thread from a few months ago here on apug where cindy sherman's photograph
was the subject. some people like her work and believe she is producing, or produced "good" art, others were vocal and thought the opposite.
in the end, it is just commerce ... the right people see it, say " its good" and people exchange money for art, and it becomes an investment.

markbarendt · Jan 27, 2012

CGW said:
The concepts of "good" and "bad" art are a bit troubling.

No more troubling than the concepts of "non-commercial" and "commercial" or the concepts or of "love" and "prostitution".

The only difference is the motivation, not the product.

Vaughn · Jan 27, 2012

Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

A worthwhile truism.

It is great when people buy my work, but I would continue making work if no one bought it. Perhaps a little slower since I would have less money to sink into equipment and material. The benefit I have gained, and the enjoyment and benefit others have received from my prints makes them of high value to me.

I do not consider myself a hobbiest -- the term seems to be insufficient in describing what I do and the why I do it. But I understand if someone would consider it to be my hobby...they would be wrong, but I understand why they might think so.

Vaughn

PS -- right on, Thomas B.!

jon koss · Jan 27, 2012

Thank Zeus. Just when I thought that poor innocent APUG had just given birth to the stinkiest, trolliest thread ever, a ray of redemption shineth. From this union of scum and villainy has sprung a new word, a word of certainly greater value to humanity than 'refudiate'. Please join me in welcoming 'vaguism' to our lexicon. (zsas, I hope you are OK with my slight massaging of the spelling.) I fully expect to hear Newt throwing this at Romney like a bolt of lightning during the next debate. Great thinking, zsas. Now if I can just find a way to get those damn Caddy fins out of my sight...

J

zsas said:
Who said this? Was s/he dead serious or merely talking about the gallery system? If it was a public lecture do tell who it was. I think the above unattributed quote is so vague and sniped from a larger point that it is pointless for us to debate a comment, possibly snide and/or satirical. I think you need more clarity in your post because it just causes vague'isms to be expressed then further debated. I will have no part.

Molli · Jan 27, 2012

I'm 100% with Thomas on this one. Art is art in and of itself and doesn't require anyone else's approval or endorsement whether that's given with a cheque book or the nod of a head.

removed account4 · Jan 28, 2012

hi molli

i agree with you as well, but i don't think that is what the OP actually says. art and commerce are being confused ...
the guest lecturer wasn't saying that the photographs weren't photographs, or they weren't
works of art, or they had no soul or anything else ...
s/he seems to be referring to the commercial aspect of art, and validation
through the exchange of money ( or barter ) . it has nothing to do with soul or art
or anything else ... it has to do with commercialism.

if someone is trying to make a living at something, one can't survive without being paid in some way, can they ?

CGW · Jan 28, 2012

Molli said:
I'm 100% with Thomas on this one. Art is art in and of itself and doesn't require anyone else's approval or endorsement whether that's given with a cheque book or the nod of a head.

Just that it's supremely self-indulgent and narcissistic to think this way. It's a conceit.

blansky · Jan 28, 2012

Lots of talk about "art" here.

Since we've never been able to really define what it is, it's hard to use it as a standard.

Also the OP took a statement, delivered it out of context and expects a thumbs up or down on it.

To someone, a badly taken, badly composed, badly lit snapshot of a child is priceless and a Pollock looks like something left on the floor after the house painters left, is worthless, it is not possible to quantify worth.

So commerce is one way. What will the market place pay for it.

Starry Night was the same painting when it was "worth" nothing and when it was worth 80 million.

These threads are interesting but provide no answers.

Toffle · Jan 28, 2012

This debate saddens me. The philosophy that commercial success is more important than the drive to create is the polar opposite of what I taught in 30 years as an arts teacher. Along with mastering their medium, the next step for my students to become artists is to identify and learn to respond to their artistic muse.

Simply put, the market it not a muse. Preaching that one must sell to be an artist is demanding that they prostitute their work. Too many artists (photographers, musicians, painters, etc.) have fallen into stagnation by creating only what is commercially accessible. Art tailored for the market may put food on the table, but without artistic risk, it is shallow and ultimately compromised.

The truth is, I know a good many artists who would rather suffer for their art than compromise it. I suppose that makes them fools in your book. (and trust me, they would consider that estimation a compliment, considering the source)

CGW · Jan 28, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
No!

Art that's focused on commerce has no soul, and is advertising more than anything.

I find your view incredibly sad and insulting to the whole arts community. There is more to life and the arts than a f-ing price tag.

It's the proceeds from the "f-ing price tag" that supports life and the arts community. It's naive to think otherwise.

removed account4 · Jan 28, 2012

making art is a self indulgent activity.
it is self expression ..

it has nothing to do with selling things.

CGW · Jan 28, 2012

Toffle said:
This debate saddens me. The philosophy that commercial success is more important than the drive to create is the polar opposite of what I taught in 30 years as an arts teacher. Along with mastering their medium, the next step for my students to become artists is to identify and learn to respond to their artistic muse.

Simply put, the market it not a muse. Preaching that one must sell to be an artist is demanding that they prostitute their work. Too many artists (photographers, musicians, painters, etc.) have fallen into stagnation by creating only what is commercially accessible. Art tailored for the market may put food on the table, but without artistic risk, it is shallow and ultimately compromised.

The truth is, I know a good many artists who would rather suffer for their art than compromise it. I suppose that makes them fools in your book. (and trust me, they would consider that estimation a compliment, considering the source)

What makes an artist successful? Doing good or doing well?

removed account4 · Jan 28, 2012

CGW said:
What makes an artist successful? Doing good or doing well?

hi cgw

i worked for someone who was a portrait photographer for 50+ years.
she did karsh-esque work, photographed dignitaries, ceo's, governors, statesmen &c
we retouched sheets of 5x7 film, and made 16x20 and 20x24 enlargements that
were printed with a special technique ( kind of pictorialist i guess )
she had a full appointment book ( every day ) from 830am-5pm, and sometimes the weekend.
she seemed to me to be very successful ... and the last from her generation to remain in business.
when i was working for her she was thinking of "winding down" her business so she could grow old(er) without
the worries of a hectic work day ( she was 74-75? )

i asked her one day if she thought she was successful and she said flat out: NO.
i found this to be hard to believe ... she was paid for her work, she had portraits published
weekly and hung on wall all over the state ...

it makes me wonder if "success" ( monetary success ) actually means "artistic failure" ?

Bill Burk · Jan 28, 2012

jnanian said:
it makes me wonder if "success" ( monetary success ) actually means "artistic failure" ?

Great thought. The corollary, Vincent van Gogh was an artistic success.

I too went to a photographic seminar over 20 years ago where a sentiment was uttered that I have seen many times. It goes something like this... "It is very difficult to make a career in photography." Though the discouraging thought stuck in my craw, I have the tape and it proves the rest of the lecture is really quite inspirational - the speaker got past the introductory downer and got into practical strategies for making a successful photographic career.

Cliveh, Do you recall from the lecture you attended, was the speaker totally discouraging? Or did he/she go on to light a spark. Your work delivers value in excess of what I've paid for it, and value in excess of what I could afford to pay for it too!

blansky · Jan 28, 2012

jnanian said:
i asked her one day if she thought she was successful and she said flat out: NO.
i found this to be hard to believe ... she was paid for her work, she had portraits published
weekly and hung on wall all over the state ...

Did she expound on her answer at all? Be interesting to know.

One also has to wonder if ANY person creating "art" ever thinks of themselves as successful.

Because the better you get at your craft, the more you realize that you really aren't all that good, unless you're a narcissist and read your own press.

The really really great ones usually have some sort of mental issues that make them a one trick pony and don't function well in any other facet of life. They probably don't consider themselves successful either.

Photographic Value

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency