Art, or anything else, has no "value" as an innate attribute. That is to say value is not a metaphysical quality of the object itself. It is a function of external, that is to say semiotic, social and therefore arbitrary constructions. Given this, your use of the word "real" becomes problematic.
On the other hand, given the unstable connotations of this "real," your statement is not objectively verifiable and hence not problematic at all. To you that is the "real" value of art, but it does not stop anyone else from positing some other kind of value. So no problem there, unless a lack of philosophical exactitude is considered a problem (in case you meant your claim to be an absolute one).
* - ignoring for the moment the wonderful self-reflexive possibilities of your statement - "Who am I to deny that maybe God is me?"
I think only you can decide what value means, or that's the point the way I understood it.
Originally Posted by big_ben_blue
Point well taken, and in fact, I'm building a part-time portrait business into a full time one this year. So... yes.. I need people beyond my family to value my photography so they can subsidize said personal work!
My photography is of worth to myself. As to its worth to others, I will leave that to the historians and the auctioneers.
That's a very elliptical statement, and is subject to many interpretations.
Originally Posted by gr82bart
The first one would be that art is truly worthless to anyone except its maker. If anybody has ever appreciated somebody else's artwork, then this proposition does not stand. I think it is the case. I appreciate other people's artwork. I have had people appreciating my work (thank you so much, the two people who did!). Ergo, my art has a real, existing value that is not limited to what I give it. It's not much, but it's true.
The second one, a variation on the first, would be more to the effect that the only value of my art that I can really be sure of is the one I give it myself. Like Descartes, I fear so much to be deceived by other people's appreciation, that I will rely only on my own cogito to ground my knowledge. It's a pretty shaky position, that borders on solipsism. As Wittgenstein said, the problem with solipsists is that have yet to meet another one. Give a little trust to other people, Jimmy, that will do ya good.
The third one, the more charitable one, would be that a photographer does not need approval to pursue his goals. Genius knows itself, but not-genius seldom recognize it. If people call you crap, sham, phoney, weak, or loser, then do not listen about their devaluation, and care instead for the shred of value you harbour within your breast about your art. Not a bad position to have, but if taken in a radical way, it might just be your downfall. Art is also communication, and taking cues from audience is just another tool you can use to make your art better. YMMV.
There are, I am sure, plenty of other interpretations. But I'm tired tonight.
So in the end, pithy statements do not necessarily embody great wisdom. They do wreak havoc on weak interpreters, however, who will tear each other to shreds in yes/no camps.
Art, you little provocateur, have some more popcorn!
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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The experience internally generated in viewing photographs is self referential and implies Art of a sort. So the photo has a life beyond the original taker and that life is potentially artistic, even in the most crass photo.
If the phenomenon of eBay demonstrates anything, it is that there is an astounding amount of crap in the world that's of value to others.