|
|
|
-
I am happy to comment on both the artistic merit and monetary value:
Zero
Zero
As for the rope representing the confusing complexities of life etc etc. Did we all not deal with more subtle and profound concepts as a 12 year old at school? Why does infusing a simple, unremarkable (staged) photograph with such 'Peter and Jane' philosophy make it worth $1m? Good luck to the photographer and I wish him well in his ascent to artistic megastardom. I would however be rather miffed if my local major gallery spent its cash on this tripe.
I can imagine that learned art buyers would really need to consult the buying guide when dealing with such images to make sure they really teased out the full depth to be had here.....[..so Bob...the rope his personal 'life monster' and if he ties it up right he takes control of everything?.....oh, no, I geddit: The rope is his lifeline and by untagling it he could fall and hurt himself, but he can't help himself?]
Last edited by Tom Stanworth; 03-26-2007 at 01:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.
-
There's this guy, I can't remember his name, he took a picture of a friggin' pepper, inside a tube! Can you imagine that? A friggin' pepper! And he wantes money for that. Who in their right mind would be stupid enough to spend taxpayer money for a photo of a pepper. I could do it myself, you know.
To each their sacred cows.
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
-
 Originally Posted by Sparky
Well - within what we'll call the world of the 'fine art photograph' (see my comment about the 'old guard' above), such a seam - and respect for truthfulness in materials, isn't really part of the language. In fact, it's downright alien. However, such gestures and playfulness with the media at hand ARE very much part of a language, and very much at home, in that exterior world that we refer to as 'visual art', and commonly find such moves in modern and contemporary (these are different epochs, in my book) painting and drawing, mixed media, etc... Wall's work is very much part of that world. And he takes his referents from that world. He is very much aware of the deeper connotations of such gestures - as, I think, were his intentions. It would be naive to suggest otherwise. Look at what he has to say about it, here, on this page, under "picture for women":
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibi...oms/room1.shtm
The seam running down the middle of the photograph is apparent in some of Wall's large-scale pictures, where two pieces of transparency are joined. The fact that it serves as a reminder of the artifice of picture making is something that Wall has come to appreciate: 'The join between the two pictures brings your eye up to the surface again and creates a dialectic that I always enjoyed and learned from painting... a dialectic between depth and flatness. Sometimes I hide it, sometimes I don't', he has said.
Okay - well, I suppose that pretty much says it all. He enjoys the tension between pictorial space and the space of the artwork.
jonathan -
nothing wrong with using language that is outside "the system."
not every photograph has to speak the "formal language of photography."
the "system" is broken if every photograph has to be compared to an adams or weston.
-
Who the hell would pay $5 for Orville Redenbacher popcorn when I can buy the kernels myself and pop them for less than a quater? Sheesh!
Regards, Art.
-
A million bucks wow whee! ....just think what an authentic Ansel Adams must be worth, hand printed on archival fibre and the zone system and all...better buy em up now while the gettin' is good! 
[FONT="Arial Black"][/FONT]
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Okay - here's one that will REALLY piss you guys off!!
-
Originally Posted by mhv
Governments across the world mismanage your social security, health insurance, civil liberties, corporate responsibilities, but somehow you are compelled to mount an attack on a perhaps overpriced acquisition of a work of art that is actually compelling, created with film, and which will enrich the collection of museums.
Sheesh.
Corrent me if I'm wrong, but the governments I know don't "mismanage" the list of things we want, but they manage that way, so we keep paying them more taxes...
In Japan, we have a lot of expensive non-art objects called, "more highways, bridges, and road signs" everywhere, and there are so many of them that no one uses them. So, I always wonder if they are meant to be public art in the first place. It's just hard to imagine some people always give away contracts to certain construction businesses that they affiliate with because you know they are paying out of our tax money.
I have nothing against the price on the photo by Mr. Wall. If it's like a mural or wall painting because it's so big, it's not a high price at all. It's just for the museum but for their community as well. It's a justifiable thing to do, and I'm of course being sarcasitc.
|
|
Adv Reply
