For the record, I'm not among those critical of Wall's work. I simply found the high price noteworthy. It's worth discussing what makes or does not make a work worth a million dollars.
Sour Grapes as Standard Equipment?
-
- Thread starter Donald Miller
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500ELX kit with CT80 lens
- Started by EgawaShiro
-
Free Kodak slide carousels
- Started by Mkaufman
-
Free Case of 22B Flashbulbs -- NE Ohio pickup
- Started by 2Dogs
-
For Sale Zone VI Development Timer and Newsletters
- Started by 2Dogs
-
Sold Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
No, the thread about the million dollar photo.
I suspect fear of the unknown is the biggest reason why there is such back lash against art; Jealousy would might be a close second; and boredom or too much time on their hands might be a distant third.
For whatever reasons, there is a very vocal group on apug (the majority?) who decry art that is not rooted in tradition, or craft.
This is why a thread of this nature doesn't stand a snow flake's chance in hell of coming out on DM's side.
For whatever reasons, there is a very vocal group on apug (the majority?) who decry art that is not rooted in tradition, or craft.
This is why a thread of this nature doesn't stand a snow flake's chance in hell of coming out on DM's side.
"After having spent time here on Apug and observing behavior on other sites, I have come to a realization. It seems that a "sour grapes attitude" must come as standard equipment with the first camera that someone buys. This errant and caustic behavior seems to become ever more firmly entrenched the longer one snaps a shutter. It eventually reaches the deafening din of a group of "bleeding deacons" who unbeknownst to them are "only preaching to the choir."
72 responses from a community of 20,000 and you determine this.
Please...
72 responses from a community of 20,000 and you determine this.
Please...
Donald,
Reality check here.
Regards, Art.
Reality check here.
- You are on a website with mostly amateurs, hobbysts and week end warriors - like me for example.
- You are on a website. On the internet.
- Opinions are like rectums. Everyone has them. Some people like to fart in public.
Regards, Art.
Hi Don,
I'm late to this "party" but glad to see your thread.
Back when the "million dollar back-lit" thread started I m/l voiced what you are saying here.
In fact, I compared it to the days when in NYC's Grand Central Station, Kodak would sponsor a back-lit photo mural (huge thing, BTW) that changed on a monthly basis.
In those then dark days of GC Sta. before it was renovated the Kodak "murals" were a highlight for many a train commuter. They hid a dreary upper level which has now been turned into a wonderful promenade.
In my post long ago on the other thread - I likened the museum's purchase to those murals and thought it was spectacular that a "back lit mural" photographer could now achieve such prominence.
Alas, as you note, instead it was a bunch of sour grapes. I can only think it hit the Aussie "hot button" for chopping down "tall poppies".
Too bad, so sad.
Now, I will go read the rest of the thread b/w your first post and this to see how "stupid" I am for agreeing with you!
This is not a photographic unique phenomenon. There are plenty of non photographers who find the success, accomplishments or material goods of others as a source of resentment. Maybe it's simple jealousy, maybe it's that they feel that the success of others comes at their expense. Personally I find the success of others to be inspiring, it shows me that "it" can be done and if I work hard enough at it then maybe I have a chance too. I enjoy the success of others especially when I know they have worked hard at it. Society as a whole does not share that, the public loves seeing people humiliated, especially celebrities or those with power but even the average person is not immune. What is the most popular TV show in America? American Idol, where contestants are routinely humiliated.
I find it interesting how people react to any good fortune that I have. I have never been one to hide any good news about myself, I've always been very open about good or bad things. What's interesting is that when you share bad news everyone is sympathetic, however when you share good news some people consider it boasting while others are sincerely happy for you. I guess it all depends on the altruism of the people you are talking to. I think self centered people are less likely to be happy for the success of others.
When it comes to photography sour grapes or jealousy becomes more evident. There's envy of talent, envy of success, even envy of equipment. I think those that embrace envy or resentment rarely succeed because of the negativity that accompanies such a trait.
As my 17 yr old daughter said to me one time...."true that"
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Messages
- 742
- Format
- Multi Format
I think there is a fine line between critical thinking and sour grapes, at least in their perceptions. On these forums if someone is disagreeing with the people who think they are the most knowledgeable they get hammered, and arguments ensue. Why does everyone find it necessary to argue? I am interested in what everyone has to say because even though I am well above average in intelligence and in my knowledge of photography, I can't possibly know everything or every situation.
Didn't you start another thread Donald about a similar topic? It seems to me you are trying to stir the pot. If you don't like something you don't have to read it. Getting annoyed on the internet is a huge waste of time. You cannot control other peoples opinions, so let them have theirs and you can have yours. You should celebrate the diversity of the people that come here, not denigrate people who don't share your opinion. Let people say what is on their minds. You never know when you will find it useful or will learn something.
Patrick
Didn't you start another thread Donald about a similar topic? It seems to me you are trying to stir the pot. If you don't like something you don't have to read it. Getting annoyed on the internet is a huge waste of time. You cannot control other peoples opinions, so let them have theirs and you can have yours. You should celebrate the diversity of the people that come here, not denigrate people who don't share your opinion. Let people say what is on their minds. You never know when you will find it useful or will learn something.
Patrick
People gots to vent sometimes...
but I guess that's part of the problem.
but I guess that's part of the problem.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,021
- Format
- Multi Format
Early riser,
I do not believe that all negative comments (what is negative is debatable) are the result of a person 'having issues'. It is possible to think the price tag silly and the work personally unstimulating/unintersting without an ounce of bitterness or agenda. Opinions can exist entirely independent of such sentiments; they just are. To draw such a direct line between a negative view and personal hang ups is about as objective as dissenters claiming that everyone with a 'overly entusiastic' positive view must be trying to ingratiate themselves with a certain audience or project a certain public persona which they aspire to reinforce thru their posts.
It really is no more complicated than some people not rating the work and being surprised that it cost so much. Big deal.
Dear Jim,
Possibly, but here's another take on it.
As long as someone is known only to the cognoscenti, no-one outside that small and rather precious circle worries very much about his/her reputation. Some offer praise; some say they don't like it; some are merely indifferent.
Then suddenly EVERYONE knows about them (often because of publicity surrounding very high prices) and those who were previously indifferent or disliked his work feel the need (not entirely unreasonably, in my view) to say things like, "Hang on, he's not THAT good" or simply "Let's stop the mindless hero-worship."
There's also the point that most people know the work of famous photographers only from books, and when they see original works, they are not always as impressed as they expected to be, at least by the photographer's technique. Here are three (deservedly) famous photographers whose work has sometimes disappointed me as originals:
AA himself. I couldn't believe how tonally awful one of his over-enlarged Hasselblad shots was (it was 3 feet square) when I saw it a few years ago at The Show Formerly Known as Viscomm in New York. In the books, of course, it's much smaller and the repro would have been taken from a sensible-sized print.
Karsh of Ottawa. Again the problem was over-enlargement. The plane of focus was all over the place. The one I remember most was Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The arm of the chair was the sharpest point; the face, downright soft. It did not look deliberate. I saw these in Birmingham, Alabama.
Aleksandr Rodchenko. Definitely not over-enlargement -- they were only about 8x10 inch prints -- but flat, muddy, scratched... That was at Arles.
There have been others: Frantisek Drticol, for example, though I can never remember how to spell his name (that was at the museum at Vevey in Switzerland). Steichen (muddy as hell -- saw them in Cologne). Brandt (rough old prints -- Dartington Hall)
Now, they all enjoy well-deserved reputations (except, in my view, Drticol) but mindless, uncritical adoration really does annoy me and no doubt many others. So does mindless, uncritical dismissal.
I go quite long distances to see ancient and modern photography, and indeed in a few weeks I'm off to Arles, probably the biggest gathering of fine art photographers in the world. I'm expecting nine-tenths of it to be crap, in accordance with Sturgeon's Law (nine-tenths of ANYTHING is crap) and in accordance with what I normally see at Arles. I'm also expecting to 'discover' (in other words, to see for the first time, whether they're well known or not) at least two or three great new-to-me photographers.
There's a cost/benefit analysis in buying any fine art: how much you like it vs. how much you can afford/want to pay. I can think of several photographers at the last Arles I attended whom I would probably buy, given $1M to pay with, ahead of the image that prompted this thread. But I can only say 'probably', in that I haven't seen the original of the Aussie gallery picture, and in that my agenda in art is probably different from theirs: I'd rather promote participation and a general artistic climate, so I'd be predisposed to go for 20 works at $50,000 or even 50 at $20,000, rather than the 'winner takes all' mentality of $1M for one work of art.
Some of us, then, are not so self-centred as to imagine that any criticism of another's work is an attempt to make ourselves look big. Even if there is an element of sour grapes in it, this need not be on our own behalf: we can sincerely believe that others' work is more worthy of praise and purchase, and that the cost/benefit analysis of a purchase such as the $1M backlit Ciba is disputable. As I said in my original post on the other thread, I don't know whether it was worth it or not: I haven't seen the original. The purchase was defensible, but whether we accept that defence or not is another matter.
Cheers,
Roger
I sort of agree with you, but not exactly. I think the topic on the other thread is about the practice of money spending on art, which is in the hands of the public, and if the price on that particular photo is justifiably a common practice, it's fine. But the point is it's not a common practice. Some people including myself get skeptical about it, and we don't call it "being jealous." I don't think the kind of purchasing we are talking about is a "sucess" at all.
Now, the question is, what did Mr. Wall want out of this? What did he recieve? And what did the public, that is the local community of where the museum is located want with it? Did they all agree to do it or not? I actually want to know more about it than simply call it a "success" or whatever.
Now, I don't know the artist, the museum that purchased his photo any more than what's already been talked about in the thread, so I won't comment further.
Well, if (supporting) art is a matter of making people pay more cash to appreciate, then the real winner is the one who convinces the buyer to come up with the most amount of cash for the prize. Then you don't have to be a photographer to be the winner in this contest, or you don't need a real curator to come up with the statement that sells your work...
Tom, the topic title refers to "Sour Grapes". To me Sour grapes is a more vigorous reaction to something than just thinking that a certain item is not worth what someone paid for it. I too think the price that Wall got was unusually high, good for him. I hope that an APUGger someday soon has such good fortune. I fit your criteria of not rating the work and being surprised that it cost so much, is that sour grapes on my part? I don't think so. I think someone with sour grapes would be upset about the price, I'm not. I think all prints should sell for that price!
This describes my reaction to the price pretty closely. I'm curious about the mechanics of the pricing and I have a skeptical nature so I tend to want justification for just about anything I don't grasp as sort of a reflexive action.
I think a selling price for anything (photograph, Ferrari, cheeseburger...) is a different thing than a resellers price determined by the market place. What something is worth at the time of its creation and what something is worth in a flea market, on eBay or at Sotheby's some time in the future would seem to be determined by different mechanisms and have different justifications.
I'm not against an artist realizing large profits rather than art speculators. I think that's cool. And I think that artists that work the mechanisms of the art world for their own benefit are to be lauded...be they Jeff Wall, Andy Warhol or me.
My perception is that traditionally, high original prices or high prices for commisions have to do as much with the costs associated with producing and installing a major work as with the stature of the artist. If you wanted Calder to make a sculpture for your civic plaza, that was expensive and not just because he was Calder.
What's remarkable (not necessarily objectionable) about this instance is the sense that the margin was so high, based on the cost to produce and that the price, relative to the name recognition (outside of the cogniscenti) is also very high. Add to that the fact that thiese are public, not private funds being spent then curiosity and room for examination rise exponentially.
Not "getting it" or even remaining unpursuaded after examination, shouldn't be taken as either dismissal of the merits of the art or of wishing the artist ill. I think it can be understood that one can remain unconvinced about the wisdom of the price paid without it being anything at all like "sour grapes."
That someone should naturally be supportive simply because one is also an analog photographer or that one should refrain from examining (let alone, criticizing) something for that reason is anathema to me.
But not, actually. I think that you can come up with a figure for market index by dividing selling price by production cost. When we figure that for Wall - we get a factor of about 20x (crudely - of course a projection, conservative actually), whereas Ansel Adams actually is garnering more like 50x PLUS (when you consider that his costs - VERY liberally esp. for the time - for a print were $100 PER print, and they sell for $5K PLUS...). So - it ain't all that great, really...
I'm going to limit my comments on the Wall photo within this topic to illustrating my thought process and not debating the particulars. There's already a thread for that discussion itself. I think there comes a point where my mention of "margin" begins to fall apart because the actual figure simply becomes very large. I understand your point and I wish I had a better construct than "margin" with which to defend my reaction.
Hey J - I wasn't analysing your comment with a microscope or anything - just using it as more of a spin-off topic that occurred to me as interesting to look at. Sorry if it seemed so.
At the risk of prying this discussion back to the Subject ...
Yes, I think there is definitely a LOT of "Sour Grapes" attitude exhibited here on APUG. I will also agree that a lot of this negativity is sublimated into "knocking" participants in the "Critique" gallery.
Not EVERYONE "sublimates". There are those who do NOT INVARIABLY find fault - under the premise that "No photograph is ever perfect!!!" - and the following, "How else are they going to learn?" - when they are being adamantly HONEST, or attempting to be honest. What on earth is rationally behind the idea that ALL praise is somehow detrimental to the growth of an artist? - even when undeniably - and in the honest opinion of the critic - warranted?
One thing APUG DOESN'T need - IN MY HUMBLE OPINION - Is a cluster hierarchy of Elite Brahmin, whose word in incontestable - and anyone who tries to offer a different view on anything is in distinct danger of getting their fingers broken. Elite - and simply paranoid.
I've been thinking about all this - it has caused me to re-visit web sites dedicated to the "Dean of All Critics" - Clement Greenberg.
He is the one critic I can honestly say that I admire, not that I agree with all he says, mindlessly (and he even says that agreeing lke that is terribly wrong), but his HONESTY in what he does was very close to absolute.
Anyone would do well to check out what has been wriiten by him, and about him. A Google search for Clement Greenbrg should be productive; or you can try:
http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/tribute.html for "The Man Who Loved Pictures, by Terry Fenton
or:
http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/criticism.html
Where he writes:
"You can decide to see anything as a picture -- just as the camera can make anything visible into a picture -- but you can't decide to see it as a good or a bad picture. That is, you can direct and control your attention, but you can't control the actual experience you have as a result of controlling and directing your attention."
Not easy reading, by any stretch of the imagination ... but, IMHO, WELL worth the effort.
Last edited by a moderator:
I continue to find this one of the most bizarre threads here.
Simply put, anyone "in the trade" who "has a problem" with what a fellow artist is able to command for her/his work is engaging in a "sour grapes" exercise.
Were any of you there at the table when the artist and the curator negotiated the transaction?
FWIW, a million bucks for a work of art is not necessarily a lot of money. Have any of you checked the art auction prices lately?
Don is absolutely on point here - you are all reacting to the figure of AU$1,000,000 as if it connotates some kind of obscene level of remuneration.
Yet there isn't a photographer on this site that would turn down the same if it were offered - is there?
Simply put, anyone "in the trade" who "has a problem" with what a fellow artist is able to command for her/his work is engaging in a "sour grapes" exercise.
Were any of you there at the table when the artist and the curator negotiated the transaction?
FWIW, a million bucks for a work of art is not necessarily a lot of money. Have any of you checked the art auction prices lately?
Don is absolutely on point here - you are all reacting to the figure of AU$1,000,000 as if it connotates some kind of obscene level of remuneration.
Yet there isn't a photographer on this site that would turn down the same if it were offered - is there?
Maybe you are right but I do find 1million to be a lot of money even if its DKR
1million US$ is around 5.6million DKR. Its just dificult to relate to. No matter the photografic quality and lifeexpectancy (or whatever) or being true art or not. There is also the question, will it keep value or not?
Hmm just a thought it gets even worse when you look at the peices sockerplayers go for e.g. Beckham.
Cheers
Søren
Keeping its market value shouldn't be a concern of the museum. Keeping a or its aesthetic value should be the concern. Is the image printed on ilfoclear or some other material with good permanence? Does the museum have a strategy to keep the image from fading?
Is there anyone here willing to say that if it is OK to pay $10,000,000 a year to some jock with a double digit IQ to play a kids game than its OK to pay $1,000,000 for an image that may only last a generation?
My answer is hell yes its more than OK, its a deal.
Is there anyone here willing to say that if it is OK to pay $10,000,000 a year to some jock with a double digit IQ to play a kids game than its OK to pay $1,000,000 for an image that may only last a generation?
My answer is hell yes its more than OK, its a deal.
Inherent, subjective value and ROI can be non-overlapping sets.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |