Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,274   Posts: 1,534,653   Online: 1100
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74
  1. #21
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    You are wrong.

    It was art all along. If you disagree with that, please explain very carefully why that isn't so.
    Hmmm. And what would it have been if it didn't sell? 20/20 hindsight being what it is...

  2. #22
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    Some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
    Truism...

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,122
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    1
    i wouldn't say he was a hobbyist, but when VVG painted the paintings they were worthless, no one would give him anything for them, so by the standards set by
    the OP's lecturer it is true the paintings were BAD ART. it was only time and the evolution of the modern world that changed van gogh's paintings into good art...
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  4. #24
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
    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.
    Hard to get much notice at the bank from "good" alone. That a few amateur judges at a camera club competition or an online site rate an image as "good" is way less gratifying than selling prints on a regular basis.

  5. #25
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,233
    Images
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Hmmm. And what would it have been if it didn't sell? 20/20 hindsight being what it is...
    I will never agree with you.

    It would still be art. What do you see when you look at art? A price tag?
    "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

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    69
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Hard to get much notice at the bank from "good" alone. That a few amateur judges at a camera club competition or an online site rate an image as "good" is way less gratifying than selling prints on a regular basis.
    Does your response have anything at all to do with mine? I didn't mention banks, clubs, etc. so I'm not sure what you're on about.

    My post was about the ridiculousness of the lecturer's position, that is all.

  7. #27
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,218
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i wouldn't say he was a hobbyist, but when VVG painted the paintings they were worthless, no one would give him anything for them, so by the standards set by
    the OP's lecturer it is true the paintings were BAD ART. it was only time and the evolution of the modern world that changed van gogh's paintings into good art...
    How can bad art change to good art? Their artistic standard is surely the same as when they were painted, only their monetary value has changed.

    “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

  8. #28
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    How can bad art change to good art? Their artistic standard is surely the same as when they were painted, only their monetary value has changed.
    The fact they were initially all but ignored suggests otherwise. Difficult to argue that critical consensus didn't determine their value--whether then or now. The concepts of "good" and "bad" art are a bit troubling. Sounds a bit like "entartete kunst."

  9. #29
    spacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Alabama, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    195
    Images
    3
    I think folks are approaching this in different directions, based on their definition of "value"... a word that only really has whatever meaning is given to it in context. If the OP means "monetary" value, then the statement is absolutely correct. Will a third party move in and force the buyer to pay some arbitrary sum, having decreed that somehow their subjective definition of "beauty" has been met (say, hanging elephant dung from the ceiling for a hefty subsidy)? If not, then it really is what the buyer is willing to pay, provided the seller is also willing.
    Personal and emotional value is something else entirely, and not even in the same ballpark. I think there's a lot of unnecessary argument over a word that can be defined so many ways depending on context.
    I have photos of my family that I value highly, but they're not "worth" any more than anyone is willing to pay.
    Doesn't bother me a bit, because in the end, they belong to me.

  10. #30
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,233
    Images
    295
    Imagine an undiscovered work by Leonardo DaVinci. Is it not art until it's discovered, so that a monetary value can be placed on it?
    Will it have no value until greedy investors can sink their talons into it?
    This whole idea that a work of art has to have ANY monetary value at all to qualify as art is so ridiculous that I want to cry, or shake somebody by their foundation. It's such an ugly way to see the world.

    What do you tell somebody who's been a painter for twenty years, but who doesn't have the ambition to sell his/her work? Their work isn't art because there is no price tag? Give me a break.
    "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

Page 3 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