Most expensive photo in the world

Tiberius47 wrote in post #13504884
If I post a photograph, can you tell me if it is art or not, and justify that claim?

yep

10megapixel wrote in post #13475546
Your absolutely right. I hope to get at least 3 million for this fine piece I call:

"Loaf on a Leaf"

Nothing crappy about this! it's art baby!

Wow.... I really like how you were able to capture the crispiness of the leaf and the loaf looks absolutely fresh.

10megapixel wrote in post #13475546
Your absolutely right. I hope to get at least 3 million for this fine piece I call:

"Loaf on a Leaf"

Nothing crappy about this! it's art baby!

You owe me a new laptop!! I spit out my coffee when I scrolled down and saw this. Holy sh!te that is funny!

StarTzar wrote in post #13518085
Wow.... I really like how you were able to capture the crispiness of the leaf and the loaf looks absolutely fresh.

:p

My wife ran in because I was laughing and choking on my coffee.

mikekelley wrote in post #13504903
yep

Alright then.

Is this an artistic picture?

Tiberius47 wrote in post #13521767
Alright then.

Is this an artistic picture?

If it sells for 4 million, it is. And at that point it will be discussed and analyzed to death.

You know, I'd be tempted to say no.

With every example you generally see correct lighting, colour balance etc.

That doesn't have it. Maybe it's because I see what's wrong with it that I can't classify it as art.

With the Rhine II it looked 'right', the turd on a leaf looked 'right'

Let's stop the presses and back up a bit. This thread has been most intriguing to follow. I thought it would die pretty quick after I read the first few pages a month ago but it's still lurching along.

Are you meaning to say, Allen, that the photographer did not understand the message his photo was communicating, but the purchaser did? I don't even disagree with you on the point you seem to be trying to make with the overall arc of your posts in this thread, but this one has me totally stumped.

On another note: if art can be quantitatively defined, how do we explain free-form jazz?

nightcat wrote in post #13522259
If it sells for 4 million, it is. And at that point it will be discussed and analyzed to death.

I was going to let Mike comment first but here I'll take a stab at it.

Usually when I look at a piece I start with the artists statement (don't have) How it fits with other work from the artist (don't have it).

Then I look at presentation. How the image is sized and presented is VERY important also the way its presented. What paper was the image printed on. Then how it was framed. Is it flush mounted or is it matted. Those all either support the statement of they fight it. So these things are so very important. Also what is the scale of the piece. How large or how small the piece is. I have none of that to work with here.

Ok lets look at what we do have. I will look at how all the visual elements are working with the subject and the composition. Here the shapes are interesting but everything else is fighting that.

First the composition. The placement of the subject on the horizon line in the frame is not doing anything to help the shape (round) to the rectangular frame. Also its a very odd place to put something that would lend itself to a very symmetrical composition. The image is flat contrast wise and that also is doing nothing to help the image and the overall color is also doing nothing to help the round shape or the subject placement.

There should be visual reasons for why the subject is located where it is. Also the color and contrast should all be supporting the subject and its not. So we can dismiss this just on the very basic technical and visual problems. No need to look any deeper really.

Tiberius47 wrote in post #13521767
Alright then.

Is this an artistic picture?

Yes - For someone who has studied art (I have dabbled) there is composition here and shape and relationships with light. All the elements of art. Granted you choose a muted color palette and minimal statement but there is something here to see. What gets in our way is the programmed blindness to commonality. We tend to look for high interest before we claim value when in fact it is a matter of perspective as to what has value and I find that artists generally have a wider perspective than not.

GoWolfpack wrote in post #13523039
Let's stop the presses and back up a bit. This thread has been most intriguing to follow. I thought it would die pretty quick after I read the first few pages a month ago but it's still lurching along.

Are you meaning to say, Allen, that the photographer did not understand the message his photo was communicating, but the purchaser did? I don't even disagree with you on the point you seem to be trying to make with the overall arc of your posts in this thread, but this one has me totally stumped.

On another note: if art can be quantitatively defined, how do we explain free-form jazz?

If you read the thread this was in the context of how much money, 4.3 million, the piece last fetched. The collector is probably the one that got that price. The collector/museum that sold it for 4.3 million probably bought the piece 9 years ago and didn't pay near that for the piece. Probably a few hundred grand. So my point is, not a waist of money, like some here are saying for a nine year investment, to grow from probably a few hundred grand to 4.3 mil in 9 years. So while some laugh at why someone would buy this the sucker made what 300% or so on a nine year investment. Not bad considering what housing and the stock market had dome over 9 years.

If you look at the artists work you can see right away he totally understands what he is doing visually. It looks like the rest of his work no matter what subject matter he shoots.

You guys keep arguing about something that has been defined for centuries and instead of arguing that it doesn't exist you would be far better off putting as much into learning that end as you have put into the f/stops and shutter and mega pixels you to might someday make real money on your work as Gursky, Admas, Weston, Bresson, DeCarave, Minor White, Robert Frank and all many of the other photographers that took the time to understand it have.

So we have Jetcode saying my photo is art, and Airfrog saying it isn't.

Now, it has a minimalist look about it, a very limited colour palette, but there is light at work there (you can see the shadow on the right of the smoke detector from the window out of frame to the left) and you can see that I have composed it so that the smoke detector is "looking" (you can see the slivers facing the window) into the empty space.

Of course, Airfrog, maybe if I printed it on nice paper and put it in a pretty frame as you suggested, you might think it is a piece of art then. But I don't see how the way something is presented actually improves the thing itself. That's like saying a lump of coal is a nice present, providing it has a pretty bow on it.

Tiberius47 wrote in post #13524357
So we have Jetcode saying my photo is art, and Airfrog saying it isn't.

Now, it has a minimalist look about it, a very limited colour palette, but there is light at work there (you can see the shadow on the right of the smoke detector from the window out of frame to the left) and you can see that I have composed it so that the smoke detector is "looking" (you can see the slivers facing the window) into the empty space.

Of course, Airfrog, maybe if I printed it on nice paper and put it in a pretty frame as you suggested, you might think it is a piece of art then. But I don't see how the way something is presented actually improves the thing itself. That's like saying a lump of coal is a nice present, providing it has a pretty bow on it.

Thats not what i'm saying at all and again you need to start putting more into the visual end because you clearly do not get it. If you can't see or understand how scale and presentation are all part of it you have MUCH to learn.

You don't see how presentation that supports the image is important? Its huge. If the paper its printed on has texture is that supporting the image by the added texture or distracting from it. The scale is all part of the presentation.

I also think Joe was referring to some artistic elements at play here as did I but I'm saying thats not enough to call this art and I say that because of the things I have already mentioned. Where is the artist in any of this piece? What is this piece trying to communicate? As a play of textures there is certainly not a lot of difference between the wall and plastic. The shapes are slightly interesting but the subject placement and the lighting are doing nothing to help highlight the roundness of the circle which might help this image.
See post # 120
https://photography-on-the.net …?p=13489018&pos​tcount=120

Your right about the empty space and if it were negative space then that might be helping this image.

The most expensive photo in the world must argumenbly be the cheapest as well! Since no other photos can compare!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13524522
Thats not what i'm saying at all and again you need to start putting more into the visual end because you clearly do not get it. If you can't see or understand how scale and presentation are all part of it you have MUCH to learn.

I'm simply saying that if my art can't speak for itself and needs a pretty frame in order to work, then the art isn't really that good. Good art, in my view, stands on its own merits.

Jetcode thinks it IS art. The fact the two of you have differing viewpoints proves my point that whether or not something is art is a purely subjective thing.

He's right here, typing these words.

The loneliness of the smoke detector's existence, built only to perform one function, never getting to do anything else. The light source off to camera left represents the freedom the smoke detector seeks, but it isn't included in the frame. This is to show how that freedom is forever unreachable.

The lack of colour in this image helps to re-enforce the single purpose of the smoke detector's existence. It's designed to just do its job and never be seen or noticed until there's a fire. If you were told to sit in the corner and be quiet and still until there's a fire, and every day people walked by you and ignored you, wouldn't you feel the same way?

Anything specific there that applies to this? Because that post is a list of people's own philosophical viewpoints. Not objective truths.

Your right about the empty space and if it were negative space then that might be helping this image.

I put the smoke detector on the left of the frame, far from the unseen light source, in order to increase the separation that the smoke detector has with freedom.

And the use of flash to almost completely override the natural light shows how such freedom is forever closed to it, forever unattainable.

So since I am trying to communicate something very specific (the isolation that one feels when one is told to do a single job without break, a very dull and boring job, and the feeling of being ignored one gets from doing such a job), and given that I have explained how the composition, colour and combination of flash with ambient light all works towards that idea that I am trying to communicate, how can you say that this is not an artistic piece?

Or is it that you don't think it's very good? But isn't that a subjective opinion?