On 5/6/2016 9:45 AM, PAS wrote:
On 5/5/2016 3:44 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/5/2016 12:49 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 4 May 2016 21:19:12 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-05-05 04:10:30 +0000, Bill W said:

On Thu, 05 May 2016 05:54:54 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Ken Hart wrote:

On 05/04/2016 06:03 PM, Ron C wrote:

Saw this photo for sale on twitter and just had to post
here for comments.
~~
Marcus Dagan ?@marcusdagan 1h1 hour ago

New artwork for sale! - "Philadelphia Abstract" -
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/p...poets-eye.html

â?¦ @fineartamerica
~~
For those not doing twitter I put a copy in my dropbox:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1po3on0jio...Art-1.jpg?dl=0
~~
I don't know ...is this guy a marketing genus?

==
Later...
Ron C

I'm not sure if "genius" is the right word, but he's a marketing
something.

â??Thereâ??s a sucker born every minute.â?? P. T. Barnumâ??s
rival David Hannum

You bound to get something cute sooner or later if you make handheld
nightshots like that.

Get Ya cam and mount a 200mm and set it on 1/2s and you'r goolden...

You have to admit the photo is unique. It could be impossible to
exactly duplicate that camera shake.

...and that makes it an accident, not a work of art.

The difference between accidental and on purpose doesn't determine if
something is, or isn't, a work of art. We have seen many images here
that were composed and edited most deliberately that are far from
works of art.

For that matter, accidental actions can result in works of art. While
you may not personally agree that Jackson Pollock's pieces are works
of art, the art community does. Pollack's style included pouring
paint on canvas, squirting paint with a basting syringe, and otherwise
distributing paint randomly on a horizontal canvas. The result was
based on the flow of paint that Pollock did not control as brush
strokes are controlled. So, the result was pure accident.

There are two ways to define "work of art": that which is perceived
to be great art by others, and that which is created artfully. The
photograph in question here could meet either definition. Maybe not
by you or me, but by some.

Andreas Gursky's "Rhein II" photograph is considered to be a work of
art by many. At least one person thought it is a work of art when
that person bought a print for US$4.3 million.

Personally, I could see both Rhein II and the photo linked to in this
thread and not be able to guess which can be purchased for US$4.3
million-plus and which can be purchased for US$88.00 framed.

I do wonder if you'd put this photograph by "Poet's Eye" up at auction
at Christie's and ask for a starting bid of US$1 million if it would
not immediately become a work of art to the art community. Perceived
value is really what determines work of art status.

Depends on the last name of the maker. About forty years ago one of my
clients saw this in a junk store, it reminded him of me, so he bought
it for $10, and gave it to me. It turned out to be the original for this.
http://www.lornebair.com/pages/books/12150/posters-original-graphics-william-gropper/summation-original-lithograph-ca-1939


Is it art, you tell me.

I don't know if it's art but it looks a lot like you, except the subject
has more hair than either of us.



I had a lot more hair in those days.


--
PeterN