Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"

On 2016-05-05 04:49:43 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

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.

Actually that is what people think of Pollock's 'splatter/dribble'
work, that it is random pouring and splattering, it was not. In
actuality his application of the paint was very deliberate and
purposeful. He applied the paint in deliberate patterns and layers.
These layers and patterns can be seen in his work. He added a color
where he intended it to go. The seemingly manic manner in which some
documentarians and critics saw him work led them to make the assumption
that his work was random and accidental. It was not.

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.

But a $39 price for a print has doomed this to being just another
abstract attempt and of no import to the art community.

So what is important in determining that a work, be it photographic, or
some other medium is valuable art is the starting price set, in all
likelihood by an agent or the 'artist' him/herself?
That might be true in certain pretentious circles, cursed with the
vision of those beholding the "Emperor's New Clothes", but that does
not make it fine art, it makes it a fine con. Personnally I only see
the con in Gursky's work, not the art. What I can appreciate is the
artistry of his con of the art world, aided and abetted by Christies.

Sometimes it is, like the Hans Anderson tale, brilliant art.

Nothing I produce with my camera has been produced with the intent of
it being art, or labeled by me as art. Some folks might well state than
there is something that one of us in our little group has created, that
they the viewer consider to be art, but is it. Some of our images might
evoke an emotional response in one viewer, or even just one's self and
for tht individual that image could well be 'art'.
IIRC there is only one regular contributor to this NG who claims that
all he produces with his camera and software is an expression of 'art',
for all I know it might be.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , 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
? @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?

Happy accidents happen all the time, and art needn't be deliberate. It's in the
eye of the beholder, not in the hand of the maker. On cannot decide to make
"art" or decide one has made "art". If others enjoy the end result, they may
decide it has artistic value. A lot of what art is is found in the
interpretation of the viewer.

Let's say you're a street photographer and want to take a shot of a little girl
on the street, you're composing your shot and are momentarily unable to see the
surroundings, and just when you hit the shutter, someone walks into frame. Darn
it, you think.

But when you look at it later, and especially when others look at it, you
realize that this "happy accident" led to the photo being able to be
interpreted in a new an unexpected way.

Here's just a shot like that, by Juan Buhler:

http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/wp-content/uploads/20120714-JBK59750.jpg

Is it "art"? Well, do you like it, does it speak to you? Art, it seems, is
deeply related to emotions, so if something created by someone else creates a
specific emotion for you, then I'd say chances are that it's art in some form.

The shot in your OP is similar, it's an happy accident that the creator or
people in his vicinity had an emotional response with. Maybe it's the colors,
or the abstract familiarity of it? I don't know, but just because you know it's
an accident doesn't preclude it from being art.

--
Sandman

On 2016-05-05 06:18:11 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , 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
? @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?

Happy accidents happen all the time, and art needn't be deliberate. It's in the
eye of the beholder, not in the hand of the maker. On cannot decide to make
"art" or decide one has made "art". If others enjoy the end result, they may
decide it has artistic value. A lot of what art is is found in the
interpretation of the viewer.

Let's say you're a street photographer and want to take a shot of a little girl
on the street, you're composing your shot and are momentarily unable to see the
surroundings, and just when you hit the shutter, someone walks into frame. Darn
it, you think.

But when you look at it later, and especially when others look at it, you
realize that this "happy accident" led to the photo being able to be
interpreted in a new an unexpected way.

Here's just a shot like that, by Juan Buhler:

http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/wp-content/uploads/20120714-JBK59750.jpg

Is it "art"? Well, do you like it, does it speak to you? Art, it seems, is
deeply related to emotions, so if something created by someone else creates a
specific emotion for you, then I'd say chances are that it's art in some form.

I must be missing something, that shot doesn't pass the 'art' test for
my eye+brain art evaluation tools. However, this opportunistic shot has
something about it that could call 'art'.
https://flic.kr/p/oUJ93c

The shot in your OP is similar, it's an happy accident that the creator or
people in his vicinity had an emotional response with. Maybe it's the colors,
or the abstract familiarity of it? I don't know, but just because you know it's
an accident doesn't preclude it from being art.

That was shot from a plane climbing out after takeoff, and his camera
wasn't able to deal with the vibration of the aircraft. It was an
accident and the shooter is sufficiently self-important to present his
accident as 'art'.
The big question is, what size did RichA buy?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2016050423562982582-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Here's just a shot like that, by Juan Buhler:

http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/wp-content/uploads/20120714-JBK59750.jpg

Is it "art"? Well, do you like it, does it speak to you? Art, it
seems, is deeply related to emotions, so if something created by
someone else creates a specific emotion for you, then I'd say
chances are that it's art in some form.

I must be missing something, that shot doesn't pass the 'art' test
for my eye+brain art evaluation tools.

Sure, everything is personal. One just have to remember that just because you
or I may not regard it as art doesn't mean it's not actually art.

Sandman:
The shot in your OP is similar, it's an happy accident that the
creator or people in his vicinity had an emotional response with.
Maybe it's the colors, or the abstract familiarity of it? I don't
know, but just because you know it's an accident doesn't preclude
it from being art.

That was shot from a plane climbing out after takeoff, and his
camera wasn't able to deal with the vibration of the aircraft. It
was an accident and the shooter is sufficiently self-important to
present his accident as 'art'.

Not sure how one presents something as "art" though. He may just have liked the
result and assumed that others may have as well.

Like I said, the creator can't decide whether or not his creation is art or
not.

--
Sandman

On 5/4/2016 7:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-04 23:22:41 +0000, "MC" said:

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.htm
l … @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?


Only if there has been any sales.

Yup!

This is just another example of the pretentious clap trap of puting a
financial value on something in order to justify it as art.

Yup!

Seeing something as art is a very individual and personal thing and
just because someone else has led you to believe it is art does not
mean it is art.

Yup!

I dare say there are an awful lot of mugs around the world crap hanging
on their walls.

Especially if it is the nauseatingly over-the-top, and mass produced
kitsch of Thomas Kinkade


I have a fair number of friends who collect Kinkade prints and they've
spent a lot of money on them. I've never understood the appeal of them,
but it's a personal thing and we all have our likes/dislikes.

Sandman wrote:
Savageduck wrote:

That was shot from a plane climbing out after takeoff, and his
camera wasn't able to deal with the vibration of the aircraft. It
was an accident and the shooter is sufficiently self-important to
present his accident as 'art'.

Not sure how one presents something as "art" though. He may just
have liked the result and assumed that others may have as well.

Like I said, the creator can't decide whether or not his creation
is art or not.

IMO, the label of 'art' depends on the degree of .. I'll call it
the "deliberativeness" in its creation.

For example, one can very easily have a happy accident which results
in some product (such as an image), which upon review (and more than
just a "what caused that oops?") results in a decision to deliberately
repeat that process for a future product.

Here's a personal example:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2006/tanzania/sunset-oops-s(20060628-16).jpg

For this first product, it wasn't art; it was an accidental discovery
of a different creation process.

Now if upon review of the product the result is (at least for its
originator) a positive reaction/interpretation such that they want
to then apply the newly-discovered creation process to make another
product, that's where it becomes *deliberate* and as such, it is
fair to then consider the product to be "art" ...

.... even if no one else likes it.



FYI, the above image was a digital scan of a 35mm slide which was
done with unintended (incorrect) settings. Instead of the settings
being to scan with "millions of colors", it was set up IIRC to scan
to a 16 color GIF .. hence the effect.

FWIW, I do intend to try this processing method again sometime, but
I haven't gotten around to finding just the right subject yet for
the next application ... I do find the effect interesting in how
it pops silhouettes, but really dislike it here because IMO, the
composition doesn't really work well. As such, I consider this
image to be merely a "happy accident" of discovery, whereas any
future deliberate creations which apply this method would arguably
be in the running to be potentially considered to be "art". YMMV.


-hh

On 2016-05-05 14:37:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 4 May 2016 23:16:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

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.

Actually that is what people think of Pollock's 'splatter/dribble'
work, that it is random pouring and splattering, it was not. In
actuality his application of the paint was very deliberate and
purposeful. He applied the paint in deliberate patterns and layers.
These layers and patterns can be seen in his work. He added a color
where he intended it to go. The seemingly manic manner in which some
documentarians and critics saw him work led them to make the assumption
that his work was random and accidental. It was not.

I'd go only with "somewhat deliberate". When dribbling paint on a
surface, the artist can somewhat control the path of the paint but not
completely control it. Creating two pieces, one might be better in
the artist's eye than the other because of the random flow of the
paint/

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.

But a $39 price for a print has doomed this to being just another
abstract attempt and of no import to the art community.

So what is important in determining that a work, be it photographic, or
some other medium is valuable art is the starting price set, in all
likelihood by an agent or the 'artist' him/herself?

In the real world, yes. If you offer your photographs for sale on a
website, the photograph you price at $100 will be considered to be a
better photograph than the one you offer at $10. The price determines
the perception. Put the same piece up at two different sites with one
using the $100 price and the other using the $10 price and the $100
version will be judged to be better.

Ask any artist who sells their work at art shows. Raising the price
often results in more sales.

That might be true in certain pretentious circles, cursed with the
vision of those beholding the "Emperor's New Clothes",

Not really. It's the ordinary buyer, not the self-proclaimed art
connoisseur, that thinks that something more expensive must be better.
It isn't just in art that this applies. Value determination by price
is a recognized marketing tool.

Hence Leica, Hasselblad, Bugatti...
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-05-05 15:36:09 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 07:55:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-05-05 14:37:33 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 4 May 2016 23:16:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Le Snip

Ask any artist who sells their work at art shows. Raising the price
often results in more sales.

That might be true in certain pretentious circles, cursed with the
vision of those beholding the "Emperor's New Clothes",

Not really. It's the ordinary buyer, not the self-proclaimed art
connoisseur, that thinks that something more expensive must be better.
It isn't just in art that this applies. Value determination by price
is a recognized marketing tool.

Hence Leica, Hasselblad, Bugatti...

The Leica M9 is a pretty good example. There's no doubt in my mind
that the M9 is quality camera. While it's short some features that
many want, it's probably a good buy at $600 if you like the aesthetics
of it.

But, by pricing it in the $6,000 range, Leica has established a value
that is far above the practical value. That prestige value is very
real to some people. Leica will probably sell more M9s at that $6,000
price than they would sell at the $600 price. The lack of features
reduces the market segment that buys based on practical aspects, but
doesn't affect the market segment that buys based on perceived value.

My thoughts exactly.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/5/2016 11:54 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-05 15:36:09 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 5 May 2016 07:55:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-05-05 14:37:33 +0000, Tony Cooper
said:

On Wed, 4 May 2016 23:16:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Le Snip

Ask any artist who sells their work at art shows. Raising the price
often results in more sales.

That might be true in certain pretentious circles, cursed with the
vision of those beholding the "Emperor's New Clothes",

Not really. It's the ordinary buyer, not the self-proclaimed art
connoisseur, that thinks that something more expensive must be better.
It isn't just in art that this applies. Value determination by price
is a recognized marketing tool.

Hence Leica, Hasselblad, Bugatti...

The Leica M9 is a pretty good example. There's no doubt in my mind
that the M9 is quality camera. While it's short some features that
many want, it's probably a good buy at $600 if you like the aesthetics
of it.

But, by pricing it in the $6,000 range, Leica has established a value
that is far above the practical value. That prestige value is very
real to some people. Leica will probably sell more M9s at that $6,000
price than they would sell at the $600 price. The lack of features
reduces the market segment that buys based on practical aspects, but
doesn't affect the market segment that buys based on perceived value.

My thoughts exactly.

Inflated value hype is what jumped out at me in the twitter/ad/spam
for the photo. I have no problem with calling the photo "art" but "fine art"
seems to (attempt to) put the photo in a more refined class.
So what distinguishes "art" from "fine art"?
[YMMV]
==
Later...
Ron C
--

Ron C wrote:
Inflated value hype is what jumped out at me in the twitter/ad/spam
for the photo. I have no problem with calling the photo "art" but "fine art"
seems to (attempt to) put the photo in a more refined class.
So what distinguishes "art" from "fine art"?
[YMMV]

The two terms are actually quite clearly defined, though
it is also true that most people have no idea what
either of them do mean!

Art is "the product of human creativity". It need not
be "good" to be art. If anyone anywhere finds something
that is man made to be beautiful, attractive, or
pleasant in any way... it is art. (Note that the word
"art" is heavily overloaded, and there are many other
valid meanings. This definition applies to what we are
discussing, while other definitions do not.)

Fine Art is a type of art. When used in the context of
"the fine arts" it means things that appeal to our sense
of beauty, or the production of those things. That
includes painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, and
music as well as photography.

But when applied to photography specifically, Fine Art
Photography means as opposed to Commercial Photography
which is made with purpose for a customer. Fine Art
Photography is made to please the photographer.

Hence if we photograph a fashion show, the images are by
definition art. If we shoot specific shots because the
sponsoring ad agency wants those particular poses to use
in commercial advertisements, that is Commercial
Photography. And if the photographer notices one
particular model looks nice in one specific outfit, and
grabs a shot just because... That is a bit of Fine Art.

Perhaps most if not all work that is called "abstract"
is Fine Art. Anything hanging in a gallery for sale is
Fine Art. Fine Art is the landscape you mount and hang
in the hallway. A portrait sold to the subject of the
photograph is commercial art, but when sold to the
general public just because it is a beautiful picture it
becomes Fine Art.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)