Has the "blurred water time-exposure" shot run its "course?"

On 8/11/2012 3:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 11:56:29 -0700, PeterN said:

snip

What makes it not art if Bruce doesn't like it?

His dislike and/or hatred of it makes it "Art".


Even if its a bad HDR?

I may not think of Jackson Pollack's work as art, but others do.

It's not what you think, it's how you feel. The moment you start feeling
and opining that the Pollock work is garbage and not worthy of being
declared art, you have established a personal opinion, intellectual
response, and judgement of the work, elevating it to the level of a work
of art. So just being moved to have that opinion of it, defines it as
art whether you like it or not.
If only you had just kept your opinion to yourself, and when asked about
the Pollock work just replied "What painting"? "Who"? which would firmly
establish an indifference to it.

Therefore, if I comment that any image is just a snapshot, it is
thereby elevated to art?

No. You looked at it, it was meaningless to you, and you are somewhat
indifferent to it, ergo it is probably what it always was, a snapshot,
never art, mostly a wasted effort.
There are shots which have been submitted to the SI which can only be
deemed snapshots. It takes one look by the viewer (in this case me) and
the first thing that goes through my mind is, "Why did this individual
even bother submitting this, SNAPSHOT"?

Pretty much as some press shot of a politician at a press conference is
just that, an example of non-art photojournalism recording a moment for
which I feel nothing but indifference.
This for example, is not art:
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics..._120811_wg.jpg

It is definitely art. The art of deceit.


However, if you are somehow asked to comment on a postcardish, or worse
image the photographer believes to be "special", and it doesn't grab you
in anyway, good or bad, there is nothing wrong with expressing your
indifference by saying something such as, "For me it is just a
snapshot". This applies to 99.9% of baby, cat, dog, goldfish, and
family vacation shots, the group in front of the Tower of Pisa for example.

Though most wedding photographers would disagree, I don't think of
wedding photography as art, satire maybe, art no. It is commercial
photography documenting a personal life event aimed at a very small
sector of the public, and I am truly indifferent to it. Regardless of
how tough it might be to shoot, I can truthfully say, when I am asked an
opinion of wedding photographs, "Oh! wedding photographs, what else do
you have"?


Most is craft.
While much of wedding work is cliche and documentary, a good event
photographer will bring out the best in people. it may be through good
use of lighting, the ability to catch the right expression, timing, etc.
One of the major reasons you don't see a lot of artistic event
photography is that most people won't pay for it. They think cousin Joe
can do as well, because his images are almost well exposed.


BTW I never said I didn't consider Jackson Pollock's work as art.

maybe not, but you implied that you did not think of it as art.


Simply using myself as a first person example.

Personally when I have stood in front of a Pollock and looked at it
closely, I have no doubt that it is art.
...but that is my opinion.
Here is Pollock #2 at the Munson, Williams, Procter Art Institute,
Utica, NY.
http://db.tt/mGlp4k9k




--
Peter

On 2012-08-11 12:39:54 -0700, Doug McDonald said:

I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
what is "art":

The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
pocketbook of the buyer.

In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
The definition is circular.

Doug McDonald

However, if any work fails to stimulate thought or emotional response
for a particular individual it does not rise to the level of art for
that individual, regardless of the value placed on it, and the
declaration that it is "art", by the "artist, "dealer", or "opinion
maker".


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-11 13:35:06 -0700, Bruce said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said:
Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image
that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?

No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.


So, in your opinion, there is no difference at all between the
'artistic value' of a $0.49 postcard and that of a $500,000 print?

I didn't say that. I said that price is irrelevant when it comes to
DEFINING art.

just because the "artist", "gallery owner", "dealer" places a monetary
value on a work.
There are many reactions one should consider to that work, one
individual might be driven to profound thought and emotional response
to the work. For him it is a great piece of art.
Another person might have no understanding of the work at all, leaving
him/her indifferent and blind to the opinion of others to it as a work
of art. He would probably place a value of $0 on it.
A third person who might, or might not be personally moved by the work
as "art", might fully understand the asking price of works by specific
artists, and might well be prepared to buy the work as an investment.
The fourth character in this play is the idiot socialite who will pay
the asking price for perceived prestige, regardless of how the work
effects them from an "artistic" point of view. They probably couldn't
tell you why they like it.

Then there are those who will gush and fawn over a work, because it is
the thing to do in that particular social group, and are yet blind to
any qualities which make it "art".

Something of "The Emperor's New suit of Clothes", sold on a hype, and
blind to the mediocrity of a $0.49 postcard that has been sold to them
for $500,000.

Art for one, an investment for another, a status symbol for one, and
nothing for the doubter, regardless of the price tag.
..
If so, why would someone pay $500,000?

Beats me. Perhaps it is great art, perhaps it is a great investment,
perhaps that bought into a particular hype, and have a need for a
status symbol. There is a big difference paying for a numbered Klimt
print for $250,000, or a fig leaf balanced on a drinking straw, or a
photograph of a clear horizon for $500,000, because they were the
creation of an allegedly eccentric and fashionable artist or
photographer.
Sometimes art is art, sometimes, that posing as art is something else.

Or perhaps compare two prints of similar size, both mounted and
framed, one costing $50 and the other $500,000. Why pay $500,000 when
you can fill the same size blank space on your wall for $50?

You asked for a definition of "art" not a cost estimate for interior
decorating.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said:
Or is it in any way related to the selling price? Is a single image
that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?

No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.



Agreed...

First baby pics of celebrities' children being typical examples. Fans wait
breathlessly for the first pics of the kids, gossip tabloids pay small
fortunes for the images, print them, and everybody forgets them within a few
weeks, if not a few days.

To me, this hardly qualifies as Art, in spite of the huge number of dollars
involved.

Take Care,
Dudley

On 2012-08-11 13:36:13 -0700, Bruce said:

Doug McDonald wrote:
I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
what is "art":

The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
pocketbook of the buyer.

In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
The definition is circular.


Interesting, because the Duck thinks that price is irrelevant.

Having Bucky the "art dealer" place a value of $500,000 on a Hallmark
"get well" card does not make it art.
For the individual unmoved emotionally, or to profound, or
introspective thought by the wall filling painting, or photograph with
a $500,000 asking price and a declaration from the "artist" that this
particular project is indeed "art", does not make it "art".

I am led by my taste, as are you, and every other individual in these
photo-groups. I know what I might be prepared to pay for a particular
work if it is to my liking, and I am sure you have a pretty good idea
of what you would pay for a work which grabs you, and one you discount
as one as not being worthy of you believing it to be "art" regardless
of artist declaration, critical acclaim and dealer set price tag.

Price is irrelevant. You might pay some unknown artist $100 for a
piece, or photograph because it moves you emotionally, evokes some
nostalgia, or provokes thought. For you it is great art and will remain
so. If you truly love it, you might refuse unbelievable offers in the
future if the artist's work is discovered and he becomes a producer of
valuable "art" commodities.

Other than as an investment, or profit for a dealer, or auction house,
price is irrelevant.
Art is loved, hated, or not even considered. If loved, price is
irrelevant, if hated, price is irrelevant. If indifferent, why even ask
the price, or bother to read the tag?

Price is irrelevant, there is good $100 art, there is terrible
$500,000, and there is $1M impossible to think of as art, garbage! When
it comes to art, price is irrelevant.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/11/2012 4:36 PM, Bruce wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
what is "art":

The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
pocketbook of the buyer.

In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
The definition is circular.


Interesting, because the Duck thinks that price is irrelevant.


According to your reasoning a beginning artist does not produce art. At
what price must the price sell to be considered art.

--
Peter

On 2012-08-11 18:12:17 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/11/2012 4:36 PM, Bruce wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
I've said it before ... but only one thing determines
what is "art":

The opinions of the "artist" and the "dealer" and the
pocketbook of the buyer.

In other words, what is art is decided by the opinion makers
of the art world. Who determines who is an opinion maker
of the art world is other opinion makers of the art world.
The definition is circular.


Interesting, because the Duck thinks that price is irrelevant.


According to your reasoning a beginning artist does not produce art. At
what price must the price sell to be considered art.

Yup!
Great art can be great art if it costs $100, or if it costs $1M.

Just placing a $1M price on a pile of garbage, and having a bunch of
dilettantes call it art, does not make it so. There will be those who
blindly follow the dilettantes' lead, only to be faced with another
example of "The Emperor's New Clothes" lauded by those who refuse to
recognize and acknowledge the "non-art" standing before them in its
nakedness.

Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining "art".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-12 15:07 , RichA wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:43 am, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: using ND filters to get the water to blur. It was fine, effective
: in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: overdone.
:
: So don't do it.

Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.

Of course he's not right.

Photographers pursue what they want to do. If that's what they want to
do then so be it. If others appreciate it, then so be it. If they
don't, that's fine too.

Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.

Cue the dogs playing poker. If you really want to come off as
intelligent, instead of parroting quotes from intelligent people (a
common trait of those who think it makes them appear intelligent), try
displaying some intelligence of your own.
Overdone themes are overdone themes and there is nothing you can say
that can validate their existence.

There is nothing you can say that invalidates what others do and do not
do. And there is even less that you have done to show otherwise.

--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-08-12 12:11:22 -0700, RichA said:

On Aug 11, 4:35*pm, Bruce wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-08-11 08:53:06 -0700, Bruce said:
Or is it in any way related to the selling price? *Is a single image
that fetches tens of thousands of dollars (or more) "better art" than
one that sells many copies at, say, $50 or less?

No. Price is irrelevant when it comes to defining art.

So, in your opinion, there is no difference at all between the
'artistic value' of a $0.49 postcard and that of a $500,000 print?

If so, why would someone pay $500,000?

Or perhaps compare two prints of similar size, both mounted and
framed, one costing $50 and the other $500,000. *Why pay $500,000 when
you can fill the same size blank space on your wall for $50?

A long time ago, someone who understood art suggested that people who
can't afford good art (pretty much most people now as real art
continues to set records at auctions as the rich move away from stocks
and bonds) suggested prints of good art were better to decorate a home
than mediocre paintings.

Good prints of good art are the way to go for those of us with thinner
wallets than the 1% ers. The big caveat here is to be selective by
making appropriate choices to match your personal taste and fit the
room. Try to find something different, and not over exposed, such as
over done Van Gogh "Sunflower" or "Irises" prints, or perhaps a cliche
"Mona Lisa".

I have three, not inexpensive, numbered prints. An atypical Bracque my
wife bought back in the 60's, A numbered Klimt I bought for my wife,
"Sea Serpents". This borders on the cliche due to the many poster
offerings of this image, but as a numbered print, uniquely finished in
gold leaf as the original, it separates itself from the typical
posters. My limited print gallery is completed with a numbered
Hundertwasser I got for about $490.00 in 1982, because was different
and it appealed to me.

I understand that today the estimated value of these numbered prints is
in the region of $15,000, but I am not selling.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-08-12 12:07:04 -0700, RichA said:

On Aug 11, 8:43*am, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012-08-10 17:10 , Robert Coe wrote:

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:02:10 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-08-10 14:46 , RichA wrote:
: Seems like nearly ever shot of water I see today is a time exposure
: using ND filters to get the water to blur. *It was fine, effectiv
e
: in the beginning when I started seeing it, but now it's getting
: overdone.
:
: So don't do it.

Good advice. I don't do it. And Rich is right.

Of course he's not right.

Photographers pursue what they want to do. *If that's what they want to
do then so be it. *If others appreciate it, then so be it. *If they
don't, that's fine too.

Anyone who allows their shooting style to be dictated by the whims of
fools like Rich is even more foolish than Rich.

Cue the dogs playing poker. If you really want to come off as
intelligent, instead of parroting quotes from intelligent people (a
common trait of those who think it makes them appear intelligent), try
displaying some intelligence of your own.
Overdone themes are overdone themes and there is nothing you can say
that can validate their existence.

Let us agree, NO VELVET ELVISES!!!

--
Regards,

Savageduck