So back to the original point of the thread. Getting a 'new' print instead of holding onto an original. Is there any valid reason to do this?
The value of art has nothing to do with the skill required to create it. Literally nothing. And generally speaking it also has nothing to do with uniqueness or innovation.
Most photography as art is nothing special in terms of technical skill or materials. Subject matter is what people actually care about.
It is not all that unusual to encounter artists who, when they were starting, used inexpensive materials and relatively poor techniques, and as a result created work that deteriorates quickly.
If you have a photo that's valued at $50,000+ and it's fading away maybe a bonefide resurrection of that print, even at a price is a really good thing???
A fool and his money are soon parted.
It's just the era. Garden variety C prints were used for that kind of thing. I saw some of them. Neither the quality of the prints themselves, nor Cindy's compositions, particularly impressed me as being anything other than just another corny fad or artsy gimmick.
She is very good in promoting herself and selling the idea behind a photograph. If you ask me I find her art to be garbage, but I am the smallest minority here and in the world of art critics it seems. Her whole "art" screams fakeness to me.
It seems to me when you buy a work of art its unknown longevity is part of the deal.
I really don't understand why anyone with an original Sherman print would sign up for this.
Because he is forced to, otherwise his print will lose its value over time since a newer, artist approved, better quality print will replace it
Interesting initiative...
To help preserve her works, Cindy Sherman is offering to destroy and reprint old photographs
The new initiative aims to stabilise fragile media and could serve as a model for other artistswww.theartnewspaper.com
Glad to see I'm not alone in this insane world.
Let’s just hope this approach doesn’t spread to sanctified Photrio favorite photographers. The site would crash if the Ansel Adams trust made a similar announcement.
pretty tricky way to make more money from old customers. She shouldreplacewhat deteriorated prematurely for free!
The odds are 99% that it's exactly that, though. Well, not entirely. I it's probably Hahnemühle, not Canson. But pigment inkjet all the same.I wonder what type of print Cindy Sherman is moving too with her dedicated lab , I hope not Canson fine art archival pigment bamboo prints.
Of course the value is not the artistic value but the market value.
Can you say what is used when establishing artistic value? I have often wondered
Thanks
pentaxuser
It is mostly subjective opinion. But then it is weird that there is something that we can call objectively subjective.
For example if thousands of people come to appreciate Bach and when I hear it I only hear drums and noise, then if I am smart, I might understand that there is some value behind it, it is just that I am not much accustomed to the language of music to appreciate and enjoy it.
When most acclaimed photographers and critics have praised Walker Evans I often wondered what is there that I cannot see. The truth was that indeed I could not see yet. As you get more into art or photography you come to appreciate the unique language of each creator. I still struggle to appreciate and understand Walker Evans but now I am beginning to dig the surface of his work.
There are other works though such as Cindy Sherman's where there is nothing to dig, everything is on the surface plain and boring. And if some artists exclaimed it, I can come up with some quieter voices that called her work received recognition disproportionately to its value.
When you say though critics and photographers you should be careful about it. In the past there were many people who really knew much about photography like John Szarkowksy, Louis Stettner, Sid Grossman, etc, who also themselves have been photographers. Their opinion mattered greatly to me.
Nowadays the majority of critics have nothing to do with photography, I doubt if they ever have lifted a camera, yet they have to invent exo-photographic terms to approach photography, such as concept, meaning, innovation.
In the modern world you have to be careful who you listen to acknowledge the artistic value of a photograph. I could give you some names but perhaps better not.
I have zero formal photographic education. And the internet doesn't always help these days, many works are locked behind paywalls or not publicly available. I can only go by what catches my eye and tickles my brain. Walker Evans? Yep, I can see the worth. At least to the way I see the world. I've seen his work, never attributed it to a name. So hop onto google and get myself educated.
I do see though that many instances of art, particularly photography needs time to sort out what's genuinely good work and what's fickle flash in the pan. A photographer that was lauded in their day might not have the legs to carry them through to the next generation. Some never get any recognition until long after they're gone.
The one thing that rankles me is when someone points out that a work of the past is lacking and they're either called uneducated or ill informed. Sometimes a fresh perspective can deviate from the accepted truths. The names of photographers mean nothing to me more or less, I don't really care who did the work generally. I'm afforded this gift of ignorance.
Or you just don't see it (yet). Apparently it happened to you with Evans. Maybe it can happen again. Not if you believe that your growth is complete of course. That one is definitely up to you.There are other works though such as Cindy Sherman's where there is nothing to dig, everything is on the surface plain and boring
Or you just don't see it (yet). Apparently it happened to you with Evans. Maybe it can happen again. Not if you believe that your growth is complete of course. That one is definitely up to you.
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?