If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/5/2016 2:18 AM, Sandman wrote:
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. I agree that a lot, if not most art is in the interpretation of the viewer, I would clarify and add that frequently art is also a means of communication. e.g. compare how the minimalist movement arose as a protest against what many artists believed to be the excesses of abstract expressionism. 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. I think that is a valid example of your point. But, it was no accident that the photographer was there when it happened. Several years ago while shooting a sunset, some girl was running right into my picture. She saw me, stopped and apologized, had she continued, it would have made a nice dynamic shot. By the time she agreed to try again, the sun had shifted and the moment was gone. Accidents happen both ways. Here is an image, shown before, where the appearance of my model was fortuitous, yet she made the image. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/mrs%20bates.jpg 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. The photographer recognized the situation after the shot, and took advantage of it later. -- PeterN |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/5/2016 2:12 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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. Thanks. I withdraw my objection. I did some searching and found the range and domain of fine art is very much larger and more diverse that I'd imagined. Seems the boundaries are continually growing as well as blurring. == Later... Ron C -- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
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. But a $39 price for a print has doomed this to being just another abstract attempt and of no import to the art community. -- PeterN |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/5/2016 1:00 PM, Ron C wrote:
snip 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] That's a determination that each must make for themselves, before they make the purchase. -- PeterN |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/5/2016 2:12 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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. IIRC Andy Warhol managed to turn some mundane commercial art into fine art. -- PeterN |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/5/2016 9:07 AM, PAS wrote:
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. Someone I knew, now deceased, made a lot of money selling paintings on velvet. He had a deal with the warden of a prison in Spain. The inmates did the painting, from what was essentially a paint by numbers kit. Here is an approximation of the pricing schedule for each of the. Inmates were paid about .25 per painting Warden was paid about $1.00. He imported them and sold them to the retailer for between eight and twenty bucks. Many low income people considered these to be "affordable art." He -- PeterN |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
I suspect that this has been floating around here for a bit But... if not Accidental Renaissance http://imgur.com/gallery/MbRKO |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/5/2016 3:56 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/5/2016 2:12 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: 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. IIRC Andy Warhol managed to turn some mundane commercial art into fine art. And a huge payday too. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
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. But a $39 price for a print has doomed this to being just another abstract attempt and of no import to the art community. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bad photo? Just call it "Fine Art"
On 5/5/2016 4:08 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/5/2016 9:07 AM, PAS wrote: 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. Someone I knew, now deceased, made a lot of money selling paintings on velvet. He had a deal with the warden of a prison in Spain. The inmates did the painting, from what was essentially a paint by numbers kit. Here is an approximation of the pricing schedule for each of the. Inmates were paid about .25 per painting Warden was paid about $1.00. He imported them and sold them to the retailer for between eight and twenty bucks. Many low income people considered these to be "affordable art." He Ahh, the "Velvet Elvis" comes to mind. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
canon fine art paper "museum etching" | william kossack | Digital Photography | 0 | February 3rd 08 05:39 PM |
"rec.photo.digital.txt" and "rec.photo.digital.dat" Filter Data Updatedand Posted | SMS 斯蒂文• 夏 | Digital Photography | 0 | December 3rd 07 06:47 AM |
Why does English call a "still life" what the Italians call "Natura Morta" | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 26 | April 28th 07 09:02 PM |
"Print So Fine" paper developer | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 20 | February 13th 06 01:31 AM |