Renowned Photographer Jeff Mitchum's Masterpiece "Third Day" Sells For $1.8 Million

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840908
In other words, it's preaching to the choir.

Yep. The choir who have taken the time to learn to read music.

edge100 wrote in post #16840770
Looks good to whom? Isn't the expression of "what's in the artist's head" the centrally important thing?

Not at all.

It's what looks good in the viewers head that matters.

There are a huge number of different music styles out there. Do you like them all? Probably not. Do you see a meaning in waste your time trying to learn to like them all? Probably not.

Same with paintings and photos.

I see zero meaning in trying to learn to like paintings from a specific artist just because other people like him/her. If I don't like them, then I switch to a museum that shows paintings I do like.

It is irrelevant how famous a specific photographer is. The question is still: do I like the photos? Or more probably - if I like one photo that doesn't mean I will like the next.

Photo and art schools can help us understand what it is with different images that may affect us and how it is affecting us. So the schools can make us more efficient at producing photos that other people likes. But thinking that the schools should make us uniformly like a specific master just because he must be liked is just plain stupid.

Every single human being must make it his/her own goal to make up his/her own mind on what he/she likes or not. There shouldn't be any training to try to be like everyone else and like something because it "has to be liked".

I like some photos. You might like others.

I like some movies. You might like others.

I like some actors. You might like others.

I like some singers. You might like others.

I like some painters. You might like others.

I like some time periods. You might like others.

I like some authors. You might like others.

Schools aren't there (or shouldn't be there) to try to change that.

And seeing grown ups trying to debate how we should learn to like, and how uneducated some people must be for not liking. That's just plain embarrassing.

edge100 wrote in post #16840801
Again, missing the point. I'm not arguing with the subjectivity of art.

What I'm saying is that you can be taught things that are not intuitive in both disciplines. A baby can learn to count to 10 and to appreciate aesthetic beauty.

But aesthetic beauty can't be measured. It's just convention. At different times and in different cultures, different things will be considered of great aesthetic beauty. 10 is still 10.

edge100 wrote in post #16840811
No, but you *can* appreciate things beyond what is easily apparent.

The more interesting question is "should you?" Is there a value in it?

Not at all. Understanding what an artist were feeling doesn't mean I need to feel or like the same.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840957
Really?

How has his work advanced humanity, or changed its direction? Has it started/ended a war? Helped send man to the moon? Cured a disease? Laid the groundwork for future work that has given us a new super-material?

The arrogance of ignorance on full display, here. HCB is the father of modern photojournalism. EVERY modern photojournalist who has reported on everything from political strife to war to sport to whatever owes an enormous debt to HCB.

edge100 wrote in post #16840816
It most certainly *can* make it good. The subjective ugliness of something is just it's facade.

But then the subjective beauty of something is also just a facade. So what's the point?

pwm2 wrote in post #16841043
But aesthetic beauty can't be measured. It's just convention. At different times and in different cultures, different things will be considered of great aesthetic beauty. 10 is still 10.

Yes, 10 is still 10.

But your assertion about art is flawed because it reduces it to aesthetic beauty, which is precisely the opposite of what I'm arguing for. In fact, I'm saying that there's so much more to art than aesthetics, just as there's so much more to math than addition.

pwm2 wrote in post #16841050
But then the subjective beauty of something is also just a facade. So what's the point?

To educate us about the world and our place in it.

edge100 wrote in post #16841048
The arrogance of ignorance on full display, here. HCB is the father of modern photojournalism. EVERY modern photojournalist who has reported on everything from political strife to war to sport to whatever owes an enormous debt to HCB.

In what way? Are you saying that, if he hadn't existed (or had stuck to drawing) then no-one would have picked up a camera and used it to take photos of current affairs?

edge100 wrote in post #16840837
Wow. This is a stunning dismissal of the last 600 years of artistic endeavour. I'm going to bow out now, so far apart are our opinions on this matter.

Art is SO much more valuable than you give it credit for.

You are still failing it.

One persons art isn't everyones art. Not liking Rembrandt doesn't mean Rembrandt paintings should be removed from history.

But Art is only meaningful and valuable for the people who like just that specific kind of Art. I can speculate in monetary gain from any painters paintings. But to fulfill more emotions than greed I need to also like those paintings. So it would be stupid to waste time on paintings just someone else likes when this world is big enough to also have lots of paintings that I personally like.

edge100 wrote in post #16841054
To educate us about the world and our place in it.

Art does nothing of the sort.

That's what documentaries, books and travelling are for.

Art is what you hang on the wall to decorate the place.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16841057
In what way? Are you saying that, if he hadn't existed (or had stuck to drawing) then no-one would have picked up a camera and used it to take photos of current affairs?

What I'm saying is that the entire field of photojournalism and street photography - both with rich histories - have their genesis largely in the person of Henri Cartier-Bresson. They are what they are because of him.

And you know what, yes, there are elements of those genera that would not exist were it not for HCB.

There is a big difference between learning to understand why a certain masters work is important and maybe outside what we like are don't like. I have been educated in the arts and I like and dislike a lot of things but I usually can understand why others my like something by someone that I don't and I can certainly understand way some are masters like or dislike what they create. That is beyond my scope of liking or disliking something but understanding why something is important beyond my narrow preferences. And what is really interesting is the way what you like and dislike will change over time. Was it the work that changed or was it me?

Shadowblade wrote in post #16841071
Art does nothing of the sort.

That's what documentaries, books and travelling are for.

Art is what you hang on the wall to decorate the place.

Ok, thread over. You win.

Pride in ignorance is a plague on western society and if we are not careful could be our ultimate downfall as other cultures scramble to gain knowledge.