Request rational and sober thinkers for this one.

[David Brown]

I had not heard of "re-photography" until this thread!

Do all of the slides I've taken over the years of my wife's paintings and drawings count?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Mark Klett's "rephotographic project" wasn't photography of other artworks, but revisiting the sites of well known and some not so well known photographs and rephotographing the site, ideally under similar lighting conditions. The new photographs showed how the places had changed over time.

[billschwab]

... it certainly explains why so many poorly done, uncreative, and downright awful works receive such abundant praise and attention.

One person's trash is another person's food.

[smieglitz]

One thing I've always found sort of curious is why so many photographers have an interest in photographing the work of other artists. For example, there seems to be a great interest to photograph architectural subjects or sculptures. I figure the original artist probably had a vision of what the photographer might capture in the original conception of the work, i.e., how light would play on the surface or how the form might appear from different angles. This, to me, brings those types of photographs of objects into the realm of document rather than art. Aren't such photographs similar to what Prince and others have done by rephotographing the work of another artist?

Also, in regard to Mark Klett's work, I also participated in a workshop he led and agree totally with John on the point of History vs. Art. IIRC, Klett also has training as a geologist and I think scientific documentation was also partial motivation for the Rephotographic projects. Several of his scene pairings evidence subtle geologic change in the landscape over time.

Joe

[Jim Chinn]

I guess it just goes to show that we are entering a post-art era. The aesthetic value of something no longer is of importance. The real value of anything called art is what price it can command. I suppose that determination comes from the current crop of critics and curators who are the king makers in the art world. Somewhere along the line the emphasis changed from selecting good art to what will bring the most eyeballs into the gallery or create the most buzz. Just another symptom of our culture drowning in the cesspool of media attention and celebrity.

[lee]

welcome to academia


lee\c

[david b]

Well I am grateful that they did not mention that I was the buyer.

[rbarker]

. . . I guess I am interested in opinions and responses to the image, the auction price and the comments by various gallery owners. Perhaps we can have nice dialogue about the current state and trends in "contemporary" photography.

I'm sorry, Jim, but I'm not at all sure rationality applies here, and it would seem that more than one person in the deal would have failed a sobriety test.

Anyone want to rent some of my prints to re-photograph them (and split the profits, of course)?

[c6h6o3]

There's one born every minute. Sotheby's and Christie's seem to know where all of them are. I suspect that there is a secret 'suckers registry' that's fed by data from all the world's hospitals' maternity wards. Every minute a new entry is recorded in the database of the parents' name, address, SSNs and net worth. This registry is used as a mailing list for photography auction catalogues.

[SchwinnParamount]

Isn't there some sort of copyright issue here? Wouldn't the original photographer who made the image for the cigarette company have some rights in this? Does your right to a photograph expire after a period of time?