Not a defense of either the jackass or the pricing, but a possible explanation for the difference (a distinction that would have been utterly lost on the jackass) - the $60K copy could have been a very late production copy, and the $150K one an early vintage print. I suspect the dealer who sold the $200K print to the jackass knew he was a jackass and raised the price accordingly.
I like it and to me that is all it matters.
Don't judge the artistic merits of a print by what it sells for in some hyped-up auction or show market. The two things aren't directly related. Asking prince is 1)related to what they think they will
get away with; 2)related to supply and demand; 3)more about the autograph on the image and its
collectibility than often the image itself. Just look at the prices demanded for kindergarten-techniqe and archivally worthless Cindy Sherman prints. When Ansel died, a Moonrise print went at aution for
40K, another for 60K, then one well over 100K. But he printed something like 350 of them! Not exactly rare. So all of a sudden the market was flooded and the prices were back down to around
15K, right at the price where you could have walked right into a dealer and bought one all along,
or even for less, when he was still alive! Never underestimate the appeal of conspicuous consumption
when it comes to what people will pay for art.
I've been to many AIPAD shows and have seen at least a dozen Moonrises printed by Adams. Not one of them was identical to any of the others. Size, contrast, tonality of the sky (the gamut from light grey to pitch black). There was something different about each one. He certainly interpreted it many different ways over the years. With that many different Moonrises, the great disparity in price doesn't surprise me in the least.
It never ceases to amaze me how a photograph like that one can command 100s of K$ while truly breathtaking work by the likes of Frederick Sommer or Aaron Siskind goes a beggin'. Although, at this year's AIPAD show the prices on Sommer's work were quite elevated over years past. $30-$50K. However, none of them was tagged as having been sold.
I haven't been on APUG very long but that might be the first time I've seen him mentioned. His images of things ground into (NY?) asphalt streets are amazing. I wish I could afford him.
Originally Posted by c6h6o3
I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
- Garry Winogrand
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The vote is in and closed on Moonrise. You don't get a vote. Sorry. It really doesn't matter what you think.
Moonrise Hernandez is a VERY heavily manipulated print with extensive dodging and burning. In truth, it was made in the darkroom. See SEXTON, JOHN. MOONRISE, HERNANDEZ. ANSEL ADAMS PRINTING NOTES —“TRANSLATION” at http://notesonphotographs.org/index....ation%E2%80%9D
I get it…as a viewer would get it. I only ever hear criticism from photographers of Adam's work, none of the every day person….that ought to tell you something…
I hear music when I see this. I feel the chill in the air from a November afternoon in the South West. I really don't care if it is his best or if I like another one better. It has what I see many images…especially those made on film these days, lacking….it has distinct mood. It is also a journey back in time, a journey into who Ansel wanted to be and ended up being.
No one can argue how intrepid photography of this caliber was in 1941, this was just not seen until then. In my opinion, if you don't get it, then you are looking at this as just a photograph of which it is not. Moonrise over Hernandez is and will always be a mile marker if not a milestone in the history of photography.....that leaves a mark that can not be erased but gets handed down through emotions generation to generation.
You don't have to like it, no one does. But the fact of the matter is that people do, it's a feel kinda thing...It will always be a great photograph, because it started as one.
Last edited by PKM-25; 09-06-2012 at 11:05 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~
Even though Galli say my vote no longer counts, it is a stunning image. Not my favorite "Adams", but a very very well done image. I think PKM-25 makes some fine points.
I am moved by many many images. I try not to let any bias rule my looking at photographs. But of course it does. Rocks and trees are fine by me. Portraits, since I generally do not take them are harder for me to approach...it has to be a pretty dang fine portrait to move me -- we see so many of them...far more images of people have been taken than of any other subject. But because I photograph the light reflecting off the landscape, I am pretty tough on landscape photographs, too. So I guess it evens out.
People give showering praise to images here that make me cringe -- I want to shout out, "But can't you see.......!" But it better to be nice and encouraging, especially when no honest critique is asked for. Dang...I need another scotch...
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
+1. Eye of the beholder. Some are blind.
Originally Posted by Vaughn