Yet more proof to me that the entire system is broken, seriously, seriously broken.
It’s not even a great picture…
Nothing against photographers, it takes talent, know how, experience, practice to be a good photographer. HOWEVER…most people can pick up a camera and with some practice, right equipment can take a picture that “Kinda” looks like a picture that even the greatest photographers take…most people CAN NOT pick up a pencil, paintbrush etc etc and make a drawing or a picture anywhere NEAR what the greatest artists can do.
In short I can’t even imagine paying “Art level” money for a photograph. I’d bet any number of decent HS photographers with decent equipment could go out and take shots that are only lacking the very finest points of this photograph, maybe not even lacking those. Ain’t no way in hell you’ll find any but the most talented artist be able to do the same with paint or pencil compared to the great art pieces in the world.
I know there are professional photographers on this forum, what is your opinion(s) on this.
~Matt
that river is full of suckers
.
The rest of the world thinks that about $10k bikes. Rich people buying rich people stuff that other people don’t like isn’t novel or telling.
fwiw I love the picture - knock off 3 zeros and give me a wall big enough to hang it and I’d be interested.
The secret to “art” is not in the creation of the masterpiece, but rather in creating the desire and demand in the minds of men with more money than brains.
Your taking a very narrow view of painting there. For me (and I’d wager most people) art is about communication. Some painters do that through the deployment of incredible technical skill but they’re a narrow subset.
I had a profitable byline through college duping out Lichtenstein paintings and I’ll be honest, get up close and my paintings were often better executed than the originals. His skill was the only skill that matters - being able to effectively communicate and stir emotion. That’s as rare in technically proficient photographers as it is in any other artistic field.
Recent art bubbles aside that’s clearly untrue. Very few “great artists” achieved wealth at all and if they did it was only by late middle age.
Recent art bubbles aside that’s clearly untrue. Very few “great artists” achieved wealth at all and if they did it was only by late middle age.
And, even with the vast majority of “great artists” the greatness is a function of hype in the mind of the buying public, rather than an actual quality of creative work. The fact that the hype didn’t catch on until after they passed is more confirmation of that fact than the opposite.
And, even with the vast majority of “great artists” the greatness is a function of hype in the mind of the buying public, rather than an actual quality of creative work.
It’s possible they are one in the same.
And, even with the vast majority of “great artists” the greatness is a function of hype in the mind of the buying public, rather than an actual quality of creative work.
It’s possible they are one in the same.
On rare occasion they are.
And, even with the vast majority of “great artists” the greatness is a function of hype in the mind of the buying public, rather than an actual quality of creative work.
It’s possible they are one in the same.
On rare occasion they are.
I probably wasn’t clear. I’m suggesting that the quality you describe isn’t necessarily objective. Rather, quality creative work drives the hype in the mind of the buying public. It might be ugly as shit, or just sloppy, or the oft heard “my 5 year old could do that,” but for some reason in strikes a chord with the public. I completely agree that what is considered good art can be hype-driven, but I’m also suggesting that if it causes the hype then it is good quality art - regardless of objective standards.
Hence my point. Art buying and collecting is about the hype, not the quality of the creative product.
“Hence my point. Art buying and collecting is about the hype, not the quality of the creative product.”
Unless quality is quantified not as “how much that apple looks like an apple” but as the ability to generate hype (aka strike a chord, aka communicate/provoke). I think this circle is complete!
being able to effectively communicate and stir emotion. That’s as rare in technically proficient photographers as it is in any other artistic field.
I would have to disagree. I’ve seen pictures taken with pretty crappy camera’s by non photographers that have captured a stirring moment. In fact I would call this fairly common and takes very little to no skill or ability to capture the moment other than being at the right place at the right time. I mean we have entire TV shows dedicated to people “Making people laugh” with video from people that have zero videography or photography talent.
IOW the stirring moment is created all ready, the photographer just has to capture it. Now granted a good photographer will be much better at doing this and will be far more likely to catch these moments and even possibly more influence over them occurring than a complete novice.
That being said it is very rare indeed that a complete novice will pick up a paint brush or pen and create a stirring piece of art. In this case the artist must not only communicate and stir the emotions, but also must create the scenario which is the focus of the stirring.
~Matt
ut I’m also suggesting that if it causes the hype then it is good quality art
What if what is causing the hype is not the art at all but the buyers that are buying it. I’m thinking of the “Keeping up with the Jones” mentality or “I wanna be cool too” mentality.
IOW is it still “Art” if it really doesn’t strike a chord, yet people are buying it because everyone else is?
~Matt
Yes. Then it is an example of “performance art.” Allow me to demonstrate through interprative dance…
being able to effectively communicate and stir emotion. That’s as rare in technically proficient photographers as it is in any other artistic field.
I would have to disagree. I’ve seen pictures taken with pretty crappy camera’s by non photographers that have captured a stirring moment. In fact I would call this fairly common and takes very little to no skill or ability to capture the moment other than being at the right place at the right time. I mean we have entire TV shows dedicated to people “Making people laugh” with video from people that have zero videography or photography talent.
IOW the stirring moment is created all ready, the photographer just has to capture it. Now granted a good photographer will be much better at doing this and will be far more likely to catch these moments and even possibly more influence over them occurring than a complete novice.
That being said it is very rare indeed that a complete novice will pick up a paint brush or pen and create a stirring piece of art. In this case the artist must not only communicate and stir the emotions, but also must create the scenario which is the focus of the stirring.
~Matt
Fair enough. I’ll concede you have a much higher chance of “getting lucky” as an amateur photographer and there are countless examples of amateur photos that have become extraordinarily famous. I’d still maintain that the ability to consistently identify, frame or completely compose affecting images is a skill that exists along a curve as long as the curve for painting. As an example I got to see an exhibit of “the Americans” recently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Americans_(photography)) - maybe, maybe I could have captured one or two of those photos in a lifetime of bumbling but the as a collection, the impression was of overwhelming talent at work
I’d still maintain that the ability to consistently identify, frame or completely compose affecting images is a skill that exists along a curve as long as the curve for painting.
I don’t disagree with this. I think the difference between a “Great photographer” and an amateur one is probably as significant in difficulty as that of a great painter and amateur one. I think the difference is that the starting points and the scale are much smaller.
I kinda of compare it to biking and running in a way.
An amateur cyclist can get on a bike and go pretty fast right off the get go. They can’t do it for very far or nearly as fast as a professional but they can still move pretty fast for a couple hundred yards. Throw a fairly out of shape guy on a well fit decent bike and they might be able to hit a decent speed and hold that for a bit. That same guy can probably ride that bike for quite some time at a lower speed.
Now take the same guy and make them run. That guy is not going anywhere near the speed of a professional runner, no where near the distance and probably can’t run for very long either.
Now it would take the guy the same amount of effort to get to the level of professional at each discipline, but in the end the difference would likely seem much greater in running than in biking.
~Matt