You people need to learn to stop worrying and love the bomb....
Thanks for the suggestions. I find at this point I'm not drawn to that style of photography (e.g. Scherer). Historically relevant and sort of interesting, but photographically not what I'd presently go out of my way to view. I saw a Kandó show a few years ago; it didn't leave much of an impression with me. It's just not the sort of thing that grabs my attention, although I can enjoy specific works from anyone if they somehow appeal to me. Frankly I'm also generally not very interested in names or name-dropping and admit that usually I forget the names even if I remember the images. Whenever I'm pressed for names I find myself having to dig up when/where I saw something and then try to figure out who it was.
I see what you mean, definitely. Good work for sure. But for instance the two Scherers you attached...technically great pictures, pleasing aesthetically, romantic...but not something that interests me. I wouldn't stop to look if I saw it hanging on a wall.See the last photo for example and think couldn't that be one of Kertesz or HCB?
Yeah, that's OK, it's a matter of taste, and also where you are in your own journey of exploration.
I see what you mean, definitely. Good work for sure. But for instance the two Scherers you attached...technically great pictures, pleasing aesthetically, romantic...but not something that interests me. I wouldn't stop to look if I saw it hanging on a wall.
I thought about this a bit last night. I came to the conclusion that for me, photography like Scherer's tends to answer a lot of questions. But I find photography (and art in general) much more interesting it asks questions and then leaves them unanswered. It's a bit like a novel or a movie with a closed vs. an open end. So within the small selection of Besnyo-Kando-Scherer that you offered, I find myself leaning towards the former much more so than towards the latter. It probably also has something to do with the society Scherer worked in; it's a lineage that involves people like Oorthuis and that tries to make things explicit and transparent, and is often strongly normative (Scherer's work has been explicitly called socialist, so firmly normative). In the Netherlands in the 1950s, this was what society appreciated. I think it's a good thing we wrestled ourselves from that firmly judgemental grip. So this also has something to do with how I view that kind of photography - it's highly representative for a society that has fundamentally changed (which is also why it's so romantic and appealing to some), and in many ways for the better, too.
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???
Don't know. I don't have the resources to own original Cindy Sherman photos. That would be pretty cool!
Do purchasers of her original prints have recourse to sue her for depreciating the value of the print they bought, especially if they were sold as let's say one of 50? After all, when you produce additional quantities, you decrease the value as they're less scarce.
This is my own personal stance about it too. But do you think that this photography shows too much?
It's a matter of taste of course, and nothing is black and white (haha). But relatively speaking, yes, I find a lot of the well-known and well-regarded 'classic' photography from the 1950s along the lines of what I've seen of Scherer to be relatively straightforward. Mind you, still sometimes aesthetically pleasing, and often historically interesting.
Isn't aesthetically pleasing the main goal of photography?
Okay, so that's what you'd say. I would not necessarily agree. Btw, there's a big difference between 'aesthetically pleasing' and 'intriguing to the eye'. I'd not conflate them the way you seem to be doing.If it doesn't intrigue the eye then I'd say you've missed the mark.
Depends on who you ask. For me, it's part of it, although not necessarily a requirement.
In images that are intriguing to the eye there is often some dialogue within the elements of the image that creates tensionOkay, so that's what you'd say. I would not necessarily agree. Btw, there's a big difference between 'aesthetically pleasing' and 'intriguing to the eye'. I'd not conflate them the way you seem to be doing.
I think i have to agree here. It is part of it but not a requirement. I dont think anyone could describe Francis Bacon paintings as aesthetically pleasing. Sometimes aesthetically pleasing can even be detrimental because it doesn't allow a piece of art to work on different layers. I know you like Ansel Adams and I will take him as an example. He is aesthetically pleasing for sure and a master of his craft. But does his art work on different deeper layers? Imo not, but we can argue a lot about that.
In images that are intriguing to the eye there is often some dialogue within the elements of the image that creates tension
I don't understand the point here. Aesthetically pleasing can be a matter of opinion. Same goes for whether or not something "works" on any other layers than the surface (and whether or not it needs to). In the case of photography I'd also add mastery of craft.
I understand where everyone is coming from but at its core photography is a visual medium. Same can be said for sound, does anyone sit down to listen to Revolution 9 on its own? Like, turn down the lights, crank the stereo and get hyped up to Revolution 9? Yes, I understand its artistic merit and within the context of the songs preceding and following it works but on it's own it's not enjoyable. At least to my ears.
Photos I think should be able to stand on their own without any context given. If context is necessary to appreciate the photo we've moved beyond photography and into something else at that point. There's nothing wrong with that but I'd argue that the artist at that point is more artist than photographer.
Photos I think should be able to stand on their own without any context given. If context is necessary to appreciate the photo we've moved beyond photography and into something else at that point.
She will destroy the original old prints so the number of total prints in circulation will stay the same
Do purchasers of her original prints have recourse to sue her for depreciating the value of the print they bought, especially if they were sold as let's say one of 50? After all, when you produce additional quantities, you decrease the value as they're less scarce.
Do purchasers of her original prints have recourse to sue her for depreciating the value of the print they bought, especially if they were sold as let's say one of 50? After all, when you produce additional quantities, you decrease the value as they're less scarce.
The argument that follows remains in its core based on what your own, particular visual preference is. That's OK, but I don't think we can ever reach common ground on that basis, other than some not very interesting observations, like that many photographers strive to make pretty pictures.I understand where everyone is coming from but
Photos I think should be able to stand on their own without any context given.
But issuing a replacement with abetter print could reduce the value of other old prints that someone else bought before who doesn't replace theirs. So they're forced to upgrade and pay for a better print. Sort of like having to buy WIndows 11 to replace Windows 10.
But issuing a replacement with abetter print could reduce the value of other old prints that someone else bought before who doesn't replace theirs.
Which brings the question whether institutional collectors like museums are making use of this offer. The previous example I mentioned all the way at the start of the thread seems to suggest they do, or at least some of them. I found that surprising when I first heard of it and I still don't quite understand it.There's a real lack of understanding of collectors in the whole idea of this print-replacement scheme.
Which brings the question whether institutional collectors like museums are making use of this offer. The previous example I mentioned all the way at the start of the thread seems to suggest they do, or at least some of them. I found that surprising when I first heard of it and I still don't quite understand it.
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?