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

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
--

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

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

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

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

I suspect that this has been floating around here for a bit
But... if not

Accidental Renaissance

http://imgur.com/gallery/MbRKO

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.

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.

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.