this guy really sells at that price?

[booggerg]

http://www.petemyers.com

Admittedly, I haven't looked up his credentials very much.. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but his images aren't 'that' impressive. He certainly charges a ton for them though! any thoughts...?

[jobe]

He wouldnt get my money, he may be better than me granted, but I dont think any of his shots are worth that money.
Interesting colour scheme, not too much like Fred Miranda's????

[DocFrankenstein]

What is up with dead animals? :confused:

[DocFrankenstein]

Is he shooting with one of those 20*20 negatives or something?

[booggerg]

Okay good.... so I'm not the only one.. He's a contributor for luminous landscape, which is how I got linked to his site.... I wonder if he actually have a steady stream of clients. I'm confident I call shell out $2K for a road trip and snap up pics of similar quality to that...

[Bitmap]

He is no Ansel Adams, but he is good.

[robertwgross]

You don't know what he sells photos for.

All you know is what he offers photos for.

He may not be selling many.

---Bob Gross---

[Bruce Hamilton]

You have to remember his smallest print size is 20x20, signed and framed to the highest archival quality, whatever that means... Plus he fashions himself as a fine arts photographer, whatever that means... The photos on his server are very good, but not that good.

[JX]

2k for his roadkill picture is a bit much. He did have some good images. But I agree he is no Ansel Adams. I guess the big question is who is buying his images and how many he is selling.

[eosster]

Man, if sells one of those print...he could buy lot of Canon L's, even EF1200mm. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[robertwgross]

I know a guy who got a very good scenic shot, practically from his own backdoor, of a famous mountain. He did it in B&W with an 8x10 view camera. He chased around for a while, and then got a few prints made at 16x20, so he priced them at $450 each. One sold. Another sold. Then another and another. He had to learn about who the customers were, and why they were pulling out their Visa cards for $450 so rapidly. At the last that I heard, he had sold eight prints.

That's a good racket.

---Bob Gross---

[booggerg]

man.. never really considered selling photographs.. I guess i have to give that a thought.. if I get lucky and snap something that really hits a chord with someone, easy money!

[am_pitbull_terrier]

They are pretty good, then again I like this Ansel Adams kinda work. Just leave out the dead animals...

[LisaMarie]

subject matter.. well I guess that's in the eye of the beholder ( buyer ? ) As far as his pricing- at some point some one must have been willing to pay that amount of $$ for his work. He obviously has client / audience for the price- or he could just be hoping- you never know !

[dewmuw]

Well if people will pay the price then that's fine. Maybe he has worked hard to build a 'name' and that is what people pay for. I think Tracey Emin just chucks together a load of old tat - but people pay thousands for her 'art'.

[Mills]

It's all about what people will pay for. There must me demand for what he is supplying. There has been a lot of Art that I would have never spent a dime on, but others a fortune. That's Art, isn't it?

[Steven M. Anthony]

It's all about what people will pay for. There must me demand for what he is supplying. There has been a lot of Art that I would have never spent a dime on, but others a fortune. That's Art, isn't it?

Exactly. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the amount one will pay for that beauty is up to the individual. If he's doing well, it is likely he has tapped into the high-end collectors market--people for whom $3,200 isn't a big deal.

[Avalonthas]

Well he is a self proclaimed artist (since he prolly designed his own site andmentions hes one of the finest), and not a photographer. Self proclaimed artists generally believe they are gods greatest gift and hike there prices up alot. Although he may have tapped into a collectors market, Im sure he could get much more $$$ if he lowered them. But with the arrogance that comes with the title, such people dont tend to do that. So yea, take that for what it is :p

[Ballen Photo]

http://www.petemyers.com (http://www.petemyers.com/)

Admittedly, I haven't looked up his credentials very much.. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but his images aren't 'that' impressive. He certainly charges a ton for them though! any thoughts...?

$35,000 for a 60" print? Granted, it's framed, but I think NOT!!!

I think He is good, but not THAT good! (or anywhere near it) :shock: :rolleyes: :lol:
-Bruce

[Steven M. Anthony]

WOW! What's with you people? Why are you all so bent out of shape that someone charges a lot for photos? My guess is that he makes a lot more the way he prices his work now than he would if he lowered the price--otherwise, he'd lower his price! Why the hostility?

When I set up my web site, the first thing a business associate of mine (who collects photographs) told me to do was raise my prices. He pointed out that people who collect art--like through galleries as opposed to through Wal-Mart--typically don't buy on price. If they love an image, they'll pay for it. If they don't love it, they won't buy it no matter how cheap it is. There is no intrinsic, objective value that can be put on artwork. It is worth what people are willing to pay for it.

[booggerg]

I guess partly because that arrogant piece of info about his artistic skills. I see no evidence of his claims..

[Ballen Photo]

WOW! What's with you people? Why are you all so bent out of shape that someone charges a lot for photos? My guess is that he makes a lot more the way he prices his work now than he would if he lowered the price--otherwise, he'd lower his price! Why the hostility?


Hi Steven, I didn't really note any hostility towards this gentleman, (with possible exception of Dead Animal shots.) Just personal opinions expressed. If He can demand this sort of money for His prints and GET it, then "More Power" to Him.
As Bob Gross pondered; I wonder how many of these prints He actually sells at these prices. :cool:
-Bruce

[Steven M. Anthony]

I guess partly because that arrogant piece of info about him artistic skills. I see no evidence of his own claims..

So. I bet those who buy his work have all the evidence they need of his artistic skills.

In fact, his pricing alone will convince some that his work must be worth it. There is more to a work of art than the item itself. The whole experience of finding, viewing and buying are part of the mix.

This translates to other products as well. I used to work in food science at Pillsbury. I was working on brownies and "had" to take a six-day seminar on tasting chocolate--like a wine tasting class, but for chocolate. The chocolate essence used in Godiva products IS better than most, but costs only about 20% more than what Hershey's uses. Yet Goviva charges 2 - 3 times as much for their products that have name-brand competition (like candy bars). The margin on their other products makes what this guy earns per print look like charity.

I think the real lesson here is that we might be able to charge more for our own work!

[robertwgross]

They are pretty good, then again I like this Ansel Adams kinda work.

The guy with the 8x10 view camera had shot an image that was somewhat similar to one that Ansel Adams had made famous.

---Bob Gross---

[chtgrubbs]

When I was starting out in pro photography an older pro told me a story with a great lesson on pricing your work. He had made a color photograph, shot in large format and printed 16x20 in dye transfer, the best and most expensive method of printing color. He put the photo in a frame in his studio window priced at $60, which even 30 years ago just barely covered the cost of the printing materials and frame. It stayed in the window for 6 months and didn't sell. One day, he added a zero to the figure and made it $600. He sold that print and several several more copies of it as well. These days, if a fine art photographer has a good reputation in the gallery and museum world then $2K for an original print is not at all out of line. Mr. Myers work is very striking, I like it alot. So Booggerg, go ahead and try to make snaps as good as this. You'll find out it is alot harder than it looks.

[booggerg]

Mr. Myers work is very striking, I like it alot. So Booggerg, go ahead and try to make snaps as good as this. You'll find out it is alot harder than it looks.

I'm not trumping my hons here... That being said, I do think I know good work when I see it. I don't see anything special with the work on his site. Many of those images seem to be your run of the mill point 'n click images. I wouldn't categorize them to be striking.

[Steven M. Anthony]

The point is, booggerg, if you don't consider it "good work," don't buy it and leave it at that. Those who DO buy it, I'm sure, consider it "good work."

There are no absolutes when it comes what is "good art." Maybe his images aren't as technically proficient as others you've seen--but most people don't buy "technical proficiency,"--only other photogs do. Most people buy art that they relate to on an emotional level. People find value in owning things they relate to in an emotional way. Some are willing to pay a lot for those things. There is nothing wrong with selling your work at a high price as you can't really force someone to buy from you.

Maybe I'll take chtgrubbs advice and add a zero at the end of my prices! :)

[DocFrankenstein]

2 Oligarchs are having a conversation:

how much did u buy that suit for?
20K
Eww. What's wrong with you? You can buy the same suit for 50K

Goes right up there with "If that's all you can get for your work, then I'm not intrested."

[pradeep1]

If you think that is much, you should go shopping for art, trendy clothing, etc. in SoHo in New York City. This is where the likes of Madonna shop. $800 for a bandana. $1200 for a blue baseball cap. So I was browsing and I walk into this painting gallery and this bald guy is slathering some type of varnish on this good sized (20" X 30") painting of this bald guy screaming in agony. I ask this guy why he is slathering on varnish, and then I notice that this goof is actually the artist. I don't know why he was using the varnish like he was, considering it looked like the same stuff you find at Home Depot to seal wood decks...I actually think he was using Behr wood sealant....in any case, I asked him the price for that painting and he said 195. I thought, well that is fair priced, and I start to browse around looking for a smaller piece I can purchase as a memento of my New York Trip. I later realize that he is asking $195,000 for it, not $195.

To me, $195 was a lot of money for that painting, especially after seeing him put Behr deck sealant on it, but for him, he thought it was worth $195,000. And obviously others did as well, as there was this German couple having some pieces crated up to ship to Germany in the back of the gallery. Just goes to show...

[booggerg]

yeah but once you get into the abstract world, then all bets are off... I'm merely making the point that these photos are just simply point n' click pics and the results speak for themselves. With a few exceptions, they mostly resemble normal photos that anyone could have taken.. If his gallery consisted of weird abstract pieces, then i would have let it be. Of course, you can always argue technically that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that's just a dogma at best, not very pratical in real-life..

[Steven M. Anthony]

yeah but once you get into the abstract world, then all bets are off... I'm merely making the point that these photos are simply point n' click and the results speak for themselves. With a few exceptions, they mostly resemble normal photos that anyone could have taken.. If his gallery consisted of weird abstract pieces, then i would have let it be. Of course, you can always argue technically that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but that's just a dogma at best, not very pratical in real-life..

And I'm simply making the point that there are likely people out there who are so emotionally drawn to those photos--point 'n' click or otherwise--that they are willing to pay the prices he asks. And with BOTH points taken--yours and mine--I'm still at a loss over your concern here.

Again, I think the lesson here isn't that the photog in question is somehow arrogant. Rather the lesson is that if you market yourself right, YOUR work could be getting $3,000 a pop!

I'm curious why you would have "let it be" had his gallery had consisted of "weird abstract pieces." The reasons why someone buys art are similar--regardless of how abstract the work is.

And "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is no more dogma than "1 + 1 = 2." That you find this truth to be not very practical in real life, however, provides us with a clue as to the source of your concern with this photog. It seems--and correct me if I'm wrong--that you believe there IS some absolute, objective measure of what is "good art," and what various levels of art quality should sell for. If this is true, please point me in the direction of the body of knowledge that sets out the quality/price guidelines. I must admit, however, that I will be surprised is such a body of knowledge or set of rules exists. There are certainly no rules governing the cost/quality relationship on anything else that is sold on this planet. It would shock me if the only one that applies is in the world of art.

[LesE]

The trouble with web sites is that it is easy to fool all the people all of the time. Everybody seems to believe that he sells prints at those prices but nobody knows whether he does or not. Could all be a PR exercise to build his profile in the art world. One thing that puzzles me is that if he has sold even one photo why doesn't he pay someone to design a decent website? That crude pink blob (especially when used for the pricing info) is hardly 'fine art' web design.

The problem with checking websites to try and determine market value for a print is that there is no way to tell whether an author has actually sold anything. What is certain is that if I put up prints for sale at $5 each, probably nobody will buy them because they will think they must be crap. If I put them up at $2,000 each probably still nobody will buy them but a good proportion will think I must be a great photographer!

[booggerg]

There are certainly no rules governing the cost/quality relationship on anything else that is sold on this planet. It would shock me if the only one that applies is in the world of art.

The undertone of my post is to whether the guy actually sells a steady stream of his photos at those prices. If you want to stand by your argument that if he even sells "one" piece at such prices then technically he's charging a just price for them. In that case, I won't continue this discussion anymore since we're obviously going off on different tangents.

I stand by by my belief that beauty is in the eye of the beholder is only true to a certain extend.. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the saying "A facy only a mother could love"....

In my book, a pretty fundamental measure of good art would be a creation you wouldn't easily find an average joe producing(assuming having the same equipment in hand, if needed). The fact that many images there look like it could have come from a roll of family vacation photos, they fail my test.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow,. I think his work is fantastic,. no I don't like the dead animals,. but it's more a matter of revulsion than critic of his method. There have been some very wolrd famous photogs that have done genius work that involved "dead animals" ... again,. I don't particualrly "get it" ,.. I just mention it as there is both a prescedent for the subject matter and a possible influence for his work. Might help explain his odd choice.

[BillH2]

I wish I had that kind of courage to price like that, besides I like living things too.

[jfrancho]

Let me offer this point of view: I think most photography is not art. The reason I come to this conclusion is based on the acceptance/criticism the community (this one included) places on itself. As photograpgers, we seem more interested in the technical aspect of taking pictures. We have criteria for what is good: exposure, DOF, composition, lighting. However, I rarely see anyone appreciate some of the more subtle aspects of pictures. Don't get me wrong, there are many very good photographers here. There are many I would consider transcend the term "photographer." But, the bulk of us are just learning and trying and sharing and learning; myself included. I've taken a look at this particular gallery, and it quite obvious that this man knows how to take a picture. Not only that, he is able to affect his notion of style or mood using the technical skills he has aquired. Most of us can probably get a shot like that, but can we truly assemble group of images, a "product" if you will? He has, and he deserves to attach whatever monetary compensation to that work he desires. What would it be worth to you, to have a picture you took purchased and hung on the wall of a perfect stranger?

One of my other passions is music. I have been learning to make music for 25 years. The most anyone will ever pay to own that art is $17.99 for a CD (more likely $5, if you come to see us live). The point is that price is set in stone. If you want to get more $$$$, you'll have to make art that appeals to more people. Or just be lucky, and I am full of bologna!?

Anyone want to buy my prints?
;~)

[Steven M. Anthony]

The undertone of my post is to whether the guy actually sells a steady stream of his photos at those prices. If you want to stand by your argument that if he even sells "one" piece at such prices then technically he's charging a just price for them. In that case, I won't continue this discussion anymore since we're obviously going off on different tangents.

I stand by by my belief that beauty is in the eye of the beholder is only true to a certain extend.. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the saying "A facy only a mother could love"....

Clearly, there is a deeper issue at play here for you, that maybe you don't even realize. Because if your question really is simply whether he sells any photos at those prices, why would you post a thread about it? Why not just call and ask him? And I'm really curious as to why you care if he sells any at those prices. Are you thinking of raising your? If you push yourself to answer the "why do you care" question, the real issue for you will likely become clear to you.

But you continue to suggest--this time more overtly--that there is such a notion of a "just price" for artwork. I think if you recognized that there is no such thing as a "just price," or an "unjust price" for artwork (or anything else for that matter when people are not forced to buy) you wouldn't have an issue with this guy.

And the phrase "a face only a mother could love" supports the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder--i.e., a physically homely child is still seen as lovable by the child's mother; because the beauty in that child--to the mother (aka, the beholder)--is in what the mother sees.

We find beauty in many forms--physical, intellectual and emotional. And the perception of beauty is as individualistic as our sense of self. And while there are trends in some forms of beauty, it is completely subjective by its very nature. Beauty is not something that exists outside our minds. "Beauty" is a personal interpretation of what we experience.

[neil_r]

At least this guy only photographs dead animals as art, Damien Hirst (thought by many to be one of the finest young British artists) actually gives you the carcass (in a vat of formaldehyde)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/09/nhirst09.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/09/nhirst09.xml)

His prices make Pete Myers’ look like change.



N

[Steven M. Anthony]

Let me offer this point of view: I think most photography is not art. The reason I come to this conclusion is based on the acceptance/criticism the community (this one included) places on itself. As photograpgers, we seem more interested in the technical aspect of taking pictures. We have criteria for what is good: exposure, DOF, composition, lighting. However, I rarely see anyone appreciate some of the more subtle aspects of pictures.

Jfrancho:

You bring up a good point. Art is communication--think of a photograph as a sentence. What many seem to do here and on just about any photo forum you go to, is focus on each word without looking at the message contained in the sentence.

I think that happens because most of us don't really know what the message in our own work is. It's often driven by only the subconscious part of our mind, and we never really figure out what it means to us.

What I have tried to do with my work--to varying degrees of success--is to understand what I'm trying to say with my photos while I'm taking them. When I can get a handle on the message, it points to specific techniques that will help support the message.

And I disagree--conceptually--that a CD has a maximum--"carved in stone"--price. While $17.99 might be the "going rate" for a CD, if you work more value to the listener into the CD, some will pay more for it. Is that an easy thing to do? Probably not. But it might be easier than you think. :)

[jfrancho]

no I don't like the dead animals,. but it's more a matter of revulsion than critic of his method.
I find inspiration in powerful emotions like revulsion. Well put.

[booggerg]

Because if your question really is simply whether he sells any photos at those prices, why would you post a thread about it? Why not just call and ask him?

I sense agitation in you, is it because I question the quality of this person's work?..

I wanted to throw this out here in hopes that readers here might point me to other examples of work on similar level of quality charging at a similar price. To confirm whether crappy photos can fetch a high price or otherwise... I'm never a fan of the idealist's view, simply becauase it is usually always so impractical. Just applying your argument, I suppose this image here can be considred art as well?

http://www.autobytel.com/images/carPics/TestDrv/Lyons/500/Armada_interior2.jpg

And finally, do you ever wonder why is it when people post crappy photos on this site, they almost always generate less replies than a spectacular photo? There has to be something inherient us all that make us attract to the same things.

[jfrancho]

I wanted to throw this out here in hopes that readers here might point me to other examples of work on similar level of quality.

My Gallery (http://plan-b.smugmug.com/gallery/428358).

[booggerg]

I don't see any prices..

[jfrancho]

I don't see any prices..

LOL...
If you have to ask...

[IndyJeff]

If I may chime in here, I say "good for him" if he can get $3000 for a print, dead animals or not. Who cares how many images he sells a month. If I priced my shots at $3000 and sold 1 a month I would be happy. Wouldn't you?

I once met a guy, who was an artisit, at a party/reception put on by the City of Indianapolis Downtown Commission back about 1984. The subject of pricing art came up. He told me that when he priced paintings at $325 for a 16 x 20 canvas, or there abouts in size, he sold some. He talked to a lot of people in the process and when it was all said and done, his paintings usually sold for about $250-$275. He had, as alcoholics say an a moment of clarity one day while at an art show. One guy was ranting and raving to his wife about what a great painting this was he plopped down the $325 without any question and asked if the painting could be held until they were ready to leave the show. Moments later another guy came by and asked how much for that same painting. When the artist told him the painting had been sold, the guy offered him $1000. Of course he said the painting had been sold and he wouldn't dupilcate his original art at any price. The guy then asked what price the guy did get for it and he tried a little white lie and said a little less than double of what you offered. The guy laughed and said he thought he was way low in his offer but he liked the painting and thought he would give it a shot to see if he could get a bargin.
This got the artist to thinking. When the couple came back to pickup their purchase the artist told them the value of that painting had gone up. He had been offered $1000 for it. The couple immediatley said they had a deal made and didn't expect to have to pay a higher price for it once they purchased it. Robert, the artist then said that it was thiers at $325, no more, no less but if they ever sold it, don't let it go for less than a grand.
The next show he went to he decided he would up his pricing. He had a sign made that said all paintings begin at $1000, whereas before he had no pricing info at all in his booth. Lots of people looked and he was the one of the highest priced guys at the show. A few asked for a price on a few and he would say, "that particular painting is listed at $1800. Are you interested?" People generally would a say 1 of 2 things...thats out of my price range or....I really like it but that is a little steep for me. It was then he would ask how much they would offer him. Now people didn't want to insult him so they would generally offer $1200 to $1500. He would then say, "let me think about it. Come back in 30 minutes and I will have an answer for you." He made them want it because they thought they might be able to get a real bargin.
Well if they were really serious, they came back. He said that about 30% came back and he always accepted their offer.
He said in the end, he was selling 15-18 paintings per show before he upped the price. Now he was selling 4-7 per show and his average price was around $1250. Do the math, he wasn't selling as many but grossing more or about the same per show. However, the value of his work had increased.

I ran into him at the Talbot Street Art Festival here in Indy and that was about 10-12 years ago and his prices were beginning at $325. He said everything he had here were things which hadn't sold at galleries and shows he had attended. I went back maybe 2-3 years later and asked around about him. One guy knew him and said that Robert had moved to Chicago and was doing very well. This guy said the chances of seeing Robert at a street art show now was about slim to none as his works were in demand and his pricing had shut him out of this type market.

Basically, IMHO, what this did was simply made his works in demand. Because they cost so much, people took his work more seriously. Right or wrongly, he accomplished what he wanted and that was to increase his sales in dollars and therefore was able to eventually make a damn good living at his craft.

Can you price your images at $3000 grand and sell any? Who knows until you try it. If you had a 20x30 print framed and priced at $3000 and someone offered you $2300 for it would you take it?

[Steven M. Anthony]

I sense agitation in you, is it because I question the quality of this person's work?..

I wanted to throw this out here in hopes that readers here might point me to other examples of work on similar level of quality. To confirm whether crappy photos can fetch a high price or otherwise... I'm never a fan of the idealist's view, simply becauase it is usually always so impractical. Just applying your argument, I suppose this image here can be considred art as well?


And finally, do you ever wonder why is it when people post crappy photos on this site, they almost always generate less replies than a spectacular photo? There has to be something inherient in all of that make us attracted the same things.

No--I'm responding to your apparent pov that one can assign some fixed value to art--that there is some magic formula that tells us, for a given quality of technical proficiency, what a photo is worth. That pov seems to be the premise of your thread--and it's one that has no support in reality.

Indeed, the photo you posted can be considered art. Whether or not it IS art depends on the intent of the person who took it. For whether something is or isn't art is in the eye of the person who made it--whether it is "good" or "bad" art, is in the eye of the beholder. But the opinion of the beholder is only true for them. It might coincide with others' opinions--but that's just coincidence.

Finally, with regard to "...do you ever wonder why is it when people post crappy photos on this site, they almost always generate less replies than a spectacular photo? There has to be something inherient in all of that make us attracted the same things."

If you ever took a course in art history, you'll probably remember how various styles went in and out of popularity. Sure there are trends in what people find appealing. But there is also diversity in opinions as to what is beautiful, as well. The "thing" that is inherent "in all of that that makes us attracted to the same thing" is the degree to which societies influence our perceptions of what is desirable and what is not.

What is pleasurable to us is registered at several levels and in several areas of our brain. Sensory indication of pleasure are routinely overridden by intellectual and emotional cues. For example, in blind taste tests, most people were found to like the taste of Pepsi more than Coke. That is, the taste centers of most people's brain "lit up" more to Pepsi than they did when tasting Coke. But when shown what they were drinking, most "Pepsi-preferrers" indicated they liked Coke more that Pepsi. So, the brand name--and the totality of the experiences people associate with that brand--overrode those people's taste centers of their brains. Their preference for the intellectual and emotional meaning of Coke was more potent than its actual taste.

You keep harping on the notion that the photog in question sells crappy photos for a lot of money--as if you were somehow appointed judge of what is crappy photography in an absolute sense. You have never seemed to pick up on the fact that his photos are not crappy to everyone. Or that others might use different criteria than you when deciding to purchase a photo.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Indy Jeff:

This might just mark the first time we've agreed on a topic! Here's to common ground!!

[Barb42]

http://www.petemyers.com/introductionfile/introduction.html

The images are actually digital paintings in a style called 'photo-realism'. Check the tiny images on the bottom of the page via the link above and select the 2nd from the right. I have seen some of this kind of work in the Minneapolis Art Institute. Amazing work but hardly photographs. Its not something anyone here would probably do. The work that goes into this kind of art work does bring that kind of money.

[booggerg]

Indeed, the photo you posted can be considered art. Whether or not it IS art depends on the intent of the person who took it. For whether something is or isn't art is in the eye of the person who made it--whether it is "good" or "bad" art, is in the eye of the beholder. But the opinion of the beholder is only true for them. It might coincide with others' opinions--but that's just coincidence.

Finally, with regard to "...do you ever wonder why is it when people post crappy photos on this site, they almost always generate less replies than a spectacular photo? There has to be something inherient in all of that make us attracted the same things."

If you ever took a course in art history, you'll probably remember how various styles went in and out of popularity. Sure there are trends in what people find appealing. But there is also diversity in opinions as to what is beautiful, as well. The "thing" that is inherent "in all of that that makes us attracted to the same thing" is the degree to which societies influence our perceptions of what is desirable and what is not.

Of course, I didn't expect you to take back what you said... I understand your argument, albiet it being an idealistic perspective. Unforutnately, the world doesn't run on idealisms. If I had posted that car interior pic and tooted it as a great example of an artistic expression using a camera, don't tell me that would be a legitimate claim. This is not an argument on philosophy, but rather an argument on practicality.

...as if you were somehow appointed judge of what is crappy photography in an absolute sense
If that car interior pic was passed around on this site to be an artist example, then it is definitely a crappy pic! I would think this sentiment is shared by any reasonable and practical individual

[jfrancho]

I don't see any prices..
BTW, I was more comparing my gallery to that lovely piece of art you posted of the car interior, not the gallery in question.

[IndyJeff]

Indy Jeff:

This might just mark the first time we've agreed on a topic! Here's to common ground!!


Yeah scary ain't it. I had to pick myself up off the floor after I found myself agreeing with you too.

I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you fell out of your chair. LOL

[Steven M. Anthony]

Of course, I didn't expect you to take back what you said... I understand your argument, albiet it being an idealistic perspective. Unforutnately, the world doesn't run on idealisms. If I had posted that car interior pic and tooted it as a great example of an artistic expression using a camera, don't tell me that would be a legitimate claim. This is not an argument on philosophy, but rather an argument on practicality.

What practicality are you talking about here? Ideals are the standards against which we measure our beliefs and actions--which makes them infinitely practical.

If you were trying to communicate something with your image of the vehicle interior, then indeed it would be a work of art. And a claim that it is art would be both legitimate and valid. If I took the photo and said I was trying to communicate "the state of suburban living," what would keep you from considering it a work of art?

[Steven M. Anthony]

Yeah scary ain't it. I had to pick myself up off the floor after I found myself agreeing with you too.

I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you fell out of your chair. LOL

LOL. I DID read what you wrote a couple of times, then pinched myself, to make sure I wasn't just dreaming the whole thing up!

[booggerg]

If the author wanted to convey those emotions, he can clearly use a better pic for that. It is the relativeness of those 2 that makes this one "crappy".

[Steven M. Anthony]

If the author wanted to convey those emotions, he can clearly use a better pic for that. It is the relativeness of that better pic and this that that makes this one "crappy".

He could clearly use a DIFFERENT photo. And a different photo might be more successful at communicating his message. But THAT doesn't keep the photo above from being art. It might keep it from being GOOD art in your eyes, but it does not keep it from being art. And if someone else saw the photo and related to it in the way it was intended, then to them it could well be seen as "good" art. Just because MOST people don't find something to be "good" art" doesn't mean someone CAN'T perceive it to be good art.

My teen daughter listen to some music (a nationaly known band--can't remember the name... maybe something with Ants?) that to me, sounds like people screaming over untuned guitars played on amps turned up to 10. To me it is torture. To her it is heaven. Is either of us wrong? Am I fooling myself to find it torturous to listen to? Is she fooling herself that she likes it? (And she liked it before I ever heard it, so it's not THAT.)

[cjm]

Pete Myers is one of the most gifted Master Fine Arts Photographers of our times.

Quoted from the first sentance of the site. I think not, he's OK but frankly some of the stuff I have seen on this site is better then his photographs.

And the pricing? .............. is that Dollars, or more realistically Pesos or Rubles? $35 G's? Give me $35 G's for photography only and I will produce images like most of the world has never seen. Not a wager, a fact!

Is he good? He obviously knows his stuff, but who can tell now in these days of photoshop. I can take a picture of my cities skyline and then place the USS Enterprise - D to scale behind it and make it look real so who knows.

Great pictures um but out to lunch prices. You have to be the best to get that kind of money, you have to be the best and dead.

[Steven M. Anthony]

Pete Myers is one of the most gifted Master Fine Arts Photographers of our times.

Is he good? He obviously knows his stuff, but who can tell now in these days of photoshop.

Great pictures um but out to lunch prices. You have to be the best to get that kind of money, you have to be the best and dead.

Who cares if he uses Photoshop? Photoshop use is an art in itself.

If the guy sells any of his work, I think it proves your last statement to be wrong. :) It's interesting, though, to see how many take issue with his pricing. I just don't see what's wrong with him charging what he does. I wouldn't buy any of his work at those prices--but I bet some people do and don't think twice about it. The builder who put on our addition to our house had a client who paid $25,000 for a custom-made basketball backboard (made of some special combination of woods that matched the trim on his house). Not the way I would spend my money, but then he's worth over $500 million and I'm, well, not...

[booggerg]

Just comparing to stuff I've seen here and the majority of the responses to this thread, I think we can all conclude that for the majority of the audience, that guy ain't sh*t. Steve, I ain't gonna discuss this with you anymore.. you have a teenager kid, obviously we think on different wavelengths...no point in discussing philosophy with someone from a different era. Just waste of time and energy.

[booggerg]

Pete Myers is one of the most gifted Master Fine Arts Photographers of our times.

Oh yeah, and that little tid-bit is annoying too... especially if its all talk and no show.

[IndyJeff]

LOL Because someone says on his website that he is one of the greatest photographers of our time don't make it so but, it doesn't mean he isn't....at least in someones eyes he is. Maybe his own.

Think of it this way, he may not be squat in the world of photography but, if someone who has a bankroll big enough to choke a horse comes across his site and buys his dead cow in the meadow to hang in their $10 million dollar home and tells people about this great photographer and shows that work with pride to his friends, what are the chances that others with a bankroll big enough to choke a horse won't run out and buy one just to say they have one too and the process begins all over again. (that may be the longest single sentence written on this board to date)

Fact of the matter is, he can claim any damn thing he wants on his website and if he can get people to shell out major denaros by believeing his claims then more power to him and much success. Are they hurt because they shell out the major denaros on what most of us would consider to be crappy photos? Not if they feel they have bought something valuable and treasure it as such.

If you had an image on your website and someone offered you $3000 for it would you say, "nahhhh it's not worth that. Not even 10% of that. Give me $30 and I will be happy." My guess is not, well maybe some would say they don't want to make any money off their photograhpy, if he just let you sign it down in the corner that would be payment enough. Hey you get a credit!!! LOL

[Steven M. Anthony]

Just comparing to stuff I've seen here and the majority of the responses to this thread, I think we can all conclude that for the majority of the audience, that guy ain't sh*t. Steve, I ain't gonna discuss this with you anymore.. you have a teenager kid, obviously we think on different wavelengths...no point in discussing philosophy with someone from a different era. Just waste of time and energy.

It's sad that you consider discussing something with someone older than you a waste of time. But I guess the implicit stance of not wanting to learn anything you don't think you already know is typical and comes through loud and clear in your other comments.

[jfrancho]

Just comparing to stuff I've seen here and the majority of the responses to this thread, I think we can all conclude that for the majority of the audience, that guy ain't sh*t. Steve, I ain't gonna discuss this with you anymore.. you have a teenager kid, obviously we think on different wavelengths...no point in discussing philosophy with someone from a different era. Just waste of time and energy.
That is a moot point since I doubt if any submission ever made to this forum has been digitally hand painted. Yeah sure we mess with filters, curves, and whatnot in ps, but in no way are we even beginning to scratch the surface of what this artist is accomplishing. If you cannot accept that, it only demonstrates your ignorance to the artist's technique. Maybe I'm wrong. The only thing that would come close is the old silver and oil technique. Anyone have any scans of that kind of work? Probably not as I doubt it translate very well to the web as a jpeg.

[booggerg]

It's sad that you consider discussing something with someone older than you a waste of time. But I guess the implicit stance of not wanting to learn anything you don't think you already know is typical and comes through loud and clear in your other comments.

Perhaps you don't understand, a difference of opinion is not a lack of education. You're padding yourself on the back too much old man.. I'm out PEACE!

[Steven M. Anthony]

...a difference of opinion is not a lack of education.

No, but when you consider discussing a difference of opinion a "waste of time," it becomes a lack of education.

[cjm]

For $35,000 I want an Image NOT created using Photoshop, that's just me. There is nothing wrong with PS, it is the digital dark room however if you think your image is worth $35 Gs you better be so talented that PS is useless too you. IMO

For $35,000 I'd rather buy REAL art painted on canvas that will go up in value such as an Original Robert Bateman or other. A photograph is easily reproduced but it is a little harder to repaint a masterpiece. I do consider Photography an art form, I don't consider though it is worth that kind of money ever. Well for art, extortion I know photos have been sold for more.

However, maybe this guy is really smart and has pricing like that just to get free advertising. Any photog fan who see's his website might be shocked and pass it around in message boards to ask "Is this worth that?" and if so, then he is very smart indeed because it worked.

[jfrancho]

I'm betting the workflow is little more complex than just photoshop. And it is REAL print art. The website clearly states that this is not photography. The photograph itself is a step in the process of creating each piece.

[poke]

Just comparing to stuff I've seen here and the majority of the responses to this thread, I think we can all conclude that for the majority of the audience, that guy ain't sh*t. Steve, I ain't gonna discuss this with you anymore.. you have a teenager kid, obviously we think on different wavelengths...no point in discussing philosophy with someone from a different era. Just waste of time and energy.

Discussing philosphy with someone from a different era gives you other points of view to consider, broadens your thinking. Discussing doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

I have a teenage kid, and I'm only 30... where does that leave me?

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Got to give this guy credit for going for the gusto!

Is it worth it? Not to me. His work is interesting for some of the technical stuff. But to me, bland. I wouldn't promote his site.

Then again, I don't think much of Warhol's dangling clocks or soup cans either. Robert Bateman I can, and have, invested in.

All a matter of taste.

If he sells, the more power to him. One box set would set him up well.

Is it worth getting on his case? No, just another business man getting along in the world.

[jfrancho]

Discussing philosphy with someone from a different era gives you other points of view to consider, broadens your thinking. Discussing doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

I have a teenage kid, and I'm only 30... where does that leave me?
Age and muturity are not closely related.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Discussing philosphy with someone from a different era gives you other points of view to consider, broadens your thinking. Discussing doesn't mean you have to agree with it.

I have a teenage kid, and I'm only 30... where does that leave me?

Like me, my sons are not really a different era, so you get to share more of their interests on a equal (or close to it) level. And you get to share some of your interests as they are still "relevent".

I think it great that my kids will raid my CD, DVD and record (yes, I mean albums) to listen to. And I can raid theirs too, just not as fully.

I'm 47, my eldest is 25. You are much closer in interest groups. this should be fun.

Regards,

[poke]

...You are much closer in interest groups...

:) I'm already telling them to turn the music down... thats all the evidence I need to know I'm getting on :p

I have found that some of the people I respect the most are people that have vastly different view to me. I enjoy them challenging my own views when I speak to them... I think in particular reference to art... its one of the things that makes art discussion so much fun :lol:... Everyone has a different opinion and nobody is WRONG!!!

[jfrancho]

:) I'm already telling them to turn the music down... thats all the evidence I need to know I'm getting on :p

I have found that some of the people I respect the most are people that have vastly different view to me. I enjoy them challenging my own views when I speak to them... I think in particular reference to art... its one of the things that makes art discussion so much fun :lol:... Everyone has a different opinion and nobody is WRONG!!!

The last statement is well put.

BTW, I am in an indie-rock band, and my six year old son refers to rehearsal as "Screamin' Time." He has been known to ask us to "turn it down."

[poke]

Would you buy a CD that is in a language you don't understand?

Art is no different. If it doesn't speak to you in a language you understand... then go find one that does, or learn the language that it speaks.

There are two ways to look at art. What was the artist trying to say... or, what message do you get from that piece of art. The two answers may have absolutely no resemblence to each other, and again may have no resemblence to what the artist intended.

I love it :)

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

:) I'm already telling them to turn the music down... thats all the evidence I need to know I'm getting on :p!!!

Well, I did say that I could not raid all of their music:confused:

Art is conceptual, like thinking.

I hope I never wind up in a world with everyone thinking the same way I do.:p

Conversation would just suck:evil:

Tolerence of thought and appreciation of the difference is enjoyment of the fellow human being.

To paraphrase the classic Calvin and Hobbes "The surest sign that there is intelligent life out there, is that they have avoided Humans".

We need more enjoyment of fellow human beings.

Regards,

[watermarkphotography]

That sounds great but does it sell ? Does anyone sell much on line ?

[watermarkphotography]

Wow that guys is nuts, I bet he has not sold any at that price, 20 inch matted for 20k. The last comments made sense till I saw his prices LOL. no way. maybe I should go shoot a goat and take its picture in black and white. By the way I am the best photographer in the world, aslo. LOL. :lol:

[watermarkphotography]

:o ooopss I read it wrong. $3k is still high to me though, but he may sell some for that price. Heck I would love to sell one every other month for that price.

[jkderby]

The main thing I learned in a marketing class - "What ever the traffic will bear".

[Steven M. Anthony]

Exactly! Why does Nortwest Airlines sell ticketes from Minneapolis to KC for $878, and tickets from San Diego to KC (with a plane change in Minneapolis) for $149? Because they can. And they can because no other airline goes MPLS to KC. But a few others go San Diego - KC, so Northwest has to price those competitively. My guess is this guy has a unique product. If you want what he does, you gotta pay his price. Simple marketing and economics.

[mdaddyrabbit]

Those are good but I dont think they are worth what he wants. Buy hey if people are buying more power to him. I wouldnt pass up that kind of cash.

[eosster]

Just imagine what it would be worth in about 50 years from now.