Photos vs. paintings as art

GW wrote:
Art is ALWAYS one of a kind. Photos can be reproduced infinitely. Value is
in rarity.


So what you are saying of is that you have no clue about art and art history.
Before becoming a painter in his own right, Rubens earned his living by
oainting copies of earlier masters. Which would then be the case:

* Rubens was not artist
* the paintings he made copies of stopped being art
* the copies Rubens made were not art

Copies of paintings - and making more than one copy from the start -
goes back a long way and nobody has until now seriously suggested that
this might somehow affect their artness.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Alan Justice"
I'm wondering about what folks think about nature photos as art (e.g., to
put on the wall of your living room, not sales to magazines) versus other
media, such as paintings. Why does someone like one over the other? I
started selling my photos at a local art gallery over a year ago and have
learned some interesting things.

Two comments that we've all heard people make a 1) While looking at a
photo, "Wow, it looks like a painting!" and 2) While looking at a painting,
"Wow, it looks like a photo!" It's as though looking like something else is
inherently valuable.

What would you like people to say, I think it is just a spontanious
outburst, when confronted with something they have little knowledge
about, you should try talk to these people, share your wisdom, they
will appreciate it. I'm sure at some point in your life you made some
comment about something you did'nt know anything about, that might
have sounded silly.

A common question I get is "How did you get that shot?" I rarely hear "How
was that picture painted?" I think folks like the idea of a photo being a
true representation of reality. It's actual beauty is often secondary.
It must be important to imagine one's self at the location, and it's easier
to do that from a photo than from a similar painting. That element of
reality adds a certain emotional content that is important for art
appreciation. And painting even has a certain advantage in being able to
represent anything at all, without having to travel there or wait for the
light. (But without actually being there, one does need a good imagination
to produce it.)

I used to get excactly that comment about my paintings, "how did you do
that" or how long does it take to do a painting. They are good questions,
and not so esay to anwser to a person who's not worked with the medium.

However because many more people take photos than paint pictures, they are
more likely to say, "I could do that," when looking at a great photo than at
a great painting. Only the more experienced photographers realize how hard
it is to get the truly great shots.

About paintings a common comment is "my daughter could do that".

I have found I can't predict very well which of my stuff will sell. The
biggest seller is not at all beautiful (not even a nature shot), but rather
it's a technically-difficult shot of two lighthouses that folks assume is a
digital manipulation. A similar painting, or a manipulation, would not
sell. The tourists often like to bring home a shot of something they saw
here (e.g., blooming Rhododendrons in the Redwoods). But some folks also
like some things they've never seen, but have only heard about (Spotted Owl
in the Redwoods). Rhodies sell as paintings, but I doubt a Spotted Owl
would.

It should be your artdealers job to sell your photographs, and I'm pretty
sure he/she knows excactly what will sell, if not he/she should get another
job. Often the artist is unable to judge his/her own work, I think because
they get more attached to some of their work.

I think, however, that folks are less likely to consider photos "Fine Art."
A good painting sells for more than a good photo. It's not fair.

Anyone have some more insights into the different perceptions people have of
these two art forms?

- Alan Justice

Photography is widely regarded as fine art, and there are as many
misunderstood genious painters, sculptors, poets, musicians, actors
etc. as there are photographers. The secret to sucsses is talent and
a good agent, very few artists are their own best agent. When looking
for a gallery to represent you, you should be very selective, and if you
get into a good one be very loyal and work actively with them on a
strategy. It's just like any other business, hard work pays off. ;o)-max-