Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,769   Posts: 1,484,213   Online: 885
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 74
  1. #11
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by perkeleellinen View Post
    And the hobbyist can create art. People have issues with these statements because 'hobby' like 'amateur' are seen, in our market obsessed world, as lower than professional and commercial.
    That's why it's called the art market.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,180
    Ye shall know them by their fruits, if their fruits are for sale.
    Steve.

  3. #13
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,728
    Images
    336
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Yeah. All those van Gogh paintings that were useless during the painters lifetime, known only by a few, were not art until people started paying for them.

    My point. Tell me I'm wrong.
    You are wrong. Have you ever seen a Van Gogh in real life? His paintings are absolutely mind blowing and nothing to do with monetary value at the time they were created.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,547
    Nonsense! Who possesses a crystal ball in order to know if and when a particular photograph becomes valuable. If history is any guide those things which obtain instant popularity seldon are labeled great by future generations.

    Ars gratia artis.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  5. #15
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,430
    Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
    Ben

  6. #16
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,990
    Images
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Yeah. All those van Gogh paintings that were useless during the painters lifetime, known only by a few, were not art until people started paying for them.

    My point. Tell me I'm wrong.
    You are wrong.

    It was art all along. If you disagree with that, please explain very carefully why that isn't so.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Quote Originally Posted by keithwms View Post
    A photograph can have high value long before it is sold...or even printed...or even shown to anyone.
    That's a good idea. One of Kant's critiques "demonstrates" that beauty (here, value) lies in the viewer and not in the object viewed. I could never agree with that because it is so anthropocentric. More of that 'tree falling in the woods' BS. All artists must deal with the problem of the narrowness of their (true) personal vision against the (possible) desire for that vision to be public enough that people will want to look at it, perhaps identify with it or even pay for it. To make art that people happen to buy is a different and higher aspiration than making art for people to buy. I think the greater fraud is to be found not between the art and its price but between the art and the artist. Of course it helps when the buyers can easily be herded; Leo Castelli knew this.

    s-a

  8. #18
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,951
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Yeah. All those van Gogh paintings that were useless during the painters lifetime, known only by a few, were not art until people started paying for them.

    My point. Tell me I'm wrong.
    You are not wrong to call van Gogh a Hobbyist. In fact you can call him whatever you want. But not many would agree with you.

  9. #19
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    You are wrong. Have you ever seen a Van Gogh in real life? His paintings are absolutely mind blowing and nothing to do with monetary value at the time they were created.
    Really? Yes I have and that's wide of the point. His work could have just piled up and sat like the guy's down the street who "paints." His work doesn't sell.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    69
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Many years ago I attended a lecture by a photographer who claimed that a photograph could only be rated as a good photograph by how much people were prepared to pay for it. I could not understand that viewpoint, any thoughts?

    It's nonsense. The word 'only' is the problem.

    There are two conditions in his statement: the "rated goodness" and the monetary value. He says they're linked, always. The two traits are linked quite often, and better photographs do tend to sell for more money than lesser ones. But to insist that all photographs must have this link to be considered "good" is ludicrous.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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