Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,011   Posts: 1,524,660   Online: 870
      
Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 149
  1. #91
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10
    ok

  2. #92
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,599
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Your confusing "the business" with "the art".

    Sure, if you intend to make a living with "the art" then the market value matters, if you just want to make a statement or make somebody happy the market does not matter.
    That's nice but you can't separate the Art from the Market. I'm guessing anyone who regularly sells work gets this. Otherwise, it's just self-indulgence, a hobby.
    Sure you can, people do it all the time.

    Seems that you are inferring "amateurs can't make real art?"

    That's a pretty arrogant assertion.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  3. #93
    sun of sand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    600
    Images
    10
    i don't think something suddenly becomes art when someone decides to buy it only to set out for display
    if someone likes it at any point in time/declares it to be art
    that means it always was art and everyone who neglected to see that at the time was just stubborn

    you can't be a "hobbiest" one day and an artist 300 years later

  4. #94
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,531
    Images
    15
    As an expert I don't know that much about art or business but early on I put a lot of work into a series of photographs that were going to be displayed in an exhibition of 50 outstanding photographs from 50 outstanding photographers. It was a submit photographs to be evaluated for exhibition and a write up event held at a gallery that was showing Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and others at the time, their work was very inexpensive at the time also. I was very happy to be chosen to be one of the exhibitors.

    When I arrived for the Champaign opening the 50 had grown to 75 and the added prints were awful, poorly mounted and poorly framed. I needed a lot of drink to make it through the event. People would ask were mine were and I hardly had the enthusiasm to point them out. I know what it's like to be setup in such a situation that's gets out of control by the gallery owner. Since then I've been very selective about the exhibit process, I'd sooner pass than be screwed like the first time.

    I don't have anything against the digital processes except when people insist that it's the only way to go, ignoring the past history of photography and art in general. I appreciate an image regardless of how it came to be, including some graffiti, wall art, sidewalk art, cave paintings, and recently the art I saw on the interior of a Pueblo in Mesa Verde National Park.

    When the two merge, digital and hand made "traditional", "analog", "regular", "historical", "alternate", you name it photographs, there is a rub that is like a rope that strangles me. I'm a rigid purest when viewing photographic art, I don't mix drinks and I don't mix art, that's me, it's my opinion. That said I have traveled to Europe to see the master painters work and paintings and I appreciate art forms from easel paintings to the sculptors of Rodin and Henry Moore et al.

    If a high quality series of art was on one wall with an information label stating what it was and a photographic series of what I call traditional photography was on another wall within view with a label I wouldn't have a problem with it as long as I was made aware ahead of time and actually saw the other art that was going to be displayed if I were the person showing traditional images.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  5. #95
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by sun of sand View Post
    i don't think something suddenly becomes art when someone decides to buy it only to set out for display
    if someone likes it at any point in time/declares it to be art
    that means it always was art and everyone who neglected to see that at the time was just stubborn

    you can't be a "hobbiest" one day and an artist 300 years later
    Dunno. Seem to recall that what's usually regarded as art was bought and paid for by someone sometime. Why take offense at that?

  6. #96
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,531
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by sun of sand View Post
    i don't think something suddenly becomes art when someone decides to buy it only to set out for display
    if someone likes it at any point in time/declares it to be art
    that means it always was art and everyone who neglected to see that at the time was just stubborn

    you can't be a "hobbiest" one day and an artist 300 years later

    I'mmmm not sure that it's true.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma_Moses

    Read the write up, she was more interested in her preserves than her art. Now days she is an artist and it didn't take 300 years. She had many hobbies but she is know for her art.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    390
    Images
    11
    This has probably gone on long enough but it can't be complete without some oddball yap from me: to wit: both the image content and the process used to form it MATTER, to most artists. Andy Warhol and Jeff Kuntz made/make art in factories without touching it. Don't think for a moment that those automated or remote processes are not an integral part of what they are "saying" as artists, certainly in those cases, it's just as important as the look of the red steel balloon dog.

    To a painter it matters that the paint was oil not watercolor or that it's paint not woodcut, etc etc. To most artists the process of creation channels the work in such an important way that it is inseparable from the work itself. For me this is certainly true.

    That may be one of the problems with mass produced digital art: the severance of the link between process and form. In digital, in my experience and that of many others, the presence of unlimited possibilities is actually a bit of a problem, it may even be a limitation. See this from Brian Eno on working with "what is perhaps the most advanced recording console in the world." For Brian Eno, the chunk o' gear he uses makes a difference in what he makes. Period. For me too.

    That said, I think Mr. Volquartz's original statement had more to do with preservation of film and analog processes, differentiation of markets and personal satisfaction, than with the nature of art itself. That quote from Gibson about no digital masterpieces threw a wrench in the works for sure and got the whole anti-digital stream going.

    It is necessary to talk about the effect of digital on photography and on the process of making art. One prominent photographer I know said digital is like strip mining. Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is for sure (whether Per Volquartz meant to open the can of worms or not), how art is made is integral to the work itself and affects (and effects) the outcome.

    Peace, ya'll.
    Jeff Glass

    Photo Blog
    Website

  8. #98
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    I'mmmm not sure that it's true.....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandma_Moses

    Read the write up, she was more interested in her preserves than her art. Now days she is an artist and it didn't take 300 years. She had many hobbies but she is know for her art.
    She was the archetype of the outsider artist in N. America. The art sold better than the jams and jellies and that's what we know her for.

  9. #99
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    [QUOTE=CGW;1075803]
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Your confusing "the business" with "the art".

    Sure, if you intend to make a living with "the art" then the market value matters, if you just want to make a statement or make somebody happy the market does not matter.[/QUOTE

    That's nice but you can't separate the Art from the Market. I'm guessing anyone who regularly sells work gets this. Otherwise, it's just self-indulgence, a hobby.
    I completely disagree, but only because you are trying to speak for others. Art is in the eye of the beholder. If you think that something has to have commercial value to be art then that is absolutely valid. When an original finite pattern with no utility gets sold, to you it's art. I happen to think my eight year old son's magic marker drawing of us sailing together is art, and guess what? Because I think so, to me it is. Here in Utah we have many magnificent petroglyphs and pictograms. Some of them are almost surreal. When they were pecked out about 2000 years ago, they were pecked out by artists making art because there are folks who regard them as such. Were the Iliad and Odyssey something less when Homer wrote them because they didn't go on sale for a couple of millennia? Poppycock.

    Your perceptions about art are valid, just not universal or absolute. Art is personal.

    It is a complete fantasy to define art beyond personal perceptions.
    Last edited by JBrunner; 10-13-2010 at 11:31 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: grammar, but not like it's the only one. My grammar sucks

  10. #100
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,599
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by JBrunner View Post
    It is a complete fantasy to define art beyond personal perceptions.
    Exactly.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin