Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 12 Apr 2014 (Saturday) 15:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
this thread is locked
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
18,392 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5858
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Apr 28, 2014 19:24 |  #421

pwm2 wrote in post #16867668 (external link)
Are you talking about the philosophical mean between two extremes?

Or the golden section?

The latter. The ratio between two lengths.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
awesomeshots
Goldmember
1,220 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 131
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Los Angeles
     
Apr 28, 2014 20:33 |  #422

Heck that picture went cheap. Apparently I picked up the wrong hobby. I could paint one of these everyday. :lol:

It's an old story but...hey. :mrgreen:

http://nypost.com …15/43-8-million-for-this/ (external link)


Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 6D, Canon 24-70 F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/4L IS, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.8, Speedlite 430 II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,043 posts
Gallery: 145 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5033
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Apr 28, 2014 20:53 |  #423

I'll say it like one of my art teachers said it to me when I said the same thing "then do it".

Artist and history of when it was created and what it was part of help with the price. He was one of the abstract expressionists from New York. Abstract Expressionism was the first major American art movement.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Barnett_Newman (external link)

Artists like Newman and Mark Rothko were dealing with human response to color. Newman didn't get near this kind of money for his work during his lifetime. Abstract Expressionism is very collectable right now.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
flashpoint99
Senior Member
411 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Dec 2012
     
Apr 28, 2014 23:59 |  #424

It's worth 1.8 million because it sold for 1.8 million




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 29, 2014 00:33 |  #425

OhLook wrote in post #16867604 (external link)
Yes, it's universal. That's why I brought it up. In addition to working as a counterexample to one of your generalizations (see next paragraph), it's an item in the visual language that airfrogusmc is talking about. People like to look at compositions that embody this ratio. Its universality shows that what counts as good in art doesn't, or doesn't entirely and never needn't, result from brainwashing by one's society or from blindly following the elite in-crowd.

Now that you acknowledge that the G.M. is universal, do you have anything to say about your earlier comment "The only things that transcend cultures are things that look the same everywhere - grass is green, sky is (usually) blue, snow is white"?

Absolutely not.

It's transcends cultures because it's universal in nature - grass is green, sky is blue and natural patterns tend to follow the Golden Ratio.

It's part of nature, not a visual element that's separate from it.

The source is absolutely inherent in the colors and their wavelengths! The human visual system is part of physical reality. The wavelengths are part of physical reality. The subjective appeal of complementary colors depends on their relative places in the visible spectrum. Someone who sees a different spectrum will have an abnormal experience of colors that are complementary to the rest of us.

No, it's not inherent in the colours and wavelengths of light involved. It's subjective to the human visual system - something that isn't identical between different people and changes with age (older people tend to see the same colour as being more yellow/warmer tones than younger people). Put a painting in front of someone with a vastly different visual system (those with 4-colour vision) or a non-human animal, or a computer attached to an imaging device, and what they 'see' is completely different.

Now, most viewers of paintings and photos are human. But that doesn't make the colours objective - merely that the subjectivity is irrelevant among the intended audience.

I presume you've heard of the placebo effect. I presume you also know what psychogenic complaints are.

Yep. It's 'all in the head'. We refer to these problems as 'supratentorial', because they're not actually real - and, because they're not real, they're not curable.

Well, then, take back your assertion that it doesn't happen! That's the reasonable and honorable thing to do. You never, ever concede a point, do you?

That's because you're putting words into my mouth. I never said it doesn't happen. I said it shouldn't happen.

A collector with an interest in art history or photographic history or just history history might pay a high price for an object of historical significance without considering it better than another object. (Neat handwriting on nice paper doesn't make an autograph expensive, or calligraphers' signatures would fetch the highest prices.) Those criteria might fall into your category of "sentimental." So a high price in such cases doesn't offend you, but a high price when craftsmanship is lacking does. Rhein II is a landscape. Is it lacking in craftsmanship? Do you think it's a bad image, and if so, why?

As above. I never said it doesn't happen. I said it shouldn't happen.

No, a high price when craftsmanship is lacking doesn't offend me. What offends me is when people say that a poorly-crafted object is 'better' than a finely-crafted object, simply because someone bought it for a high price or because it was made by someone famous. Queen Victoria's signature is more expensive than my secretary's signature. It is not 'better'.

For the record, Rhein II is very poorly crafted. It has none of the technical or aesthetic elements which make a landscape attractive to the vast majority of people (people who are not art insiders, anyway). No-one who wasn't an art insider would pay any money for it and very few would deem it attractive. Sure, it may represent the style of the artist. So what? The style of the artist isn't very attractive to those outside the art world.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 29, 2014 00:36 |  #426

Owain Shaw wrote in post #16867615 (external link)
Your original post mentioned nothing about a normal house, nor do I believe that was what you meant at that time with the words "a poorly-constructed house with a 'concept' or 'statement' behind it" either - as such a house doesn't sound like a normal house to me. And I think it could very easily be compared to a large mansion if both are intended for living, have approximately the same floor space and number of rooms, why can it not be considered comparable?

Someone who appreciates Gehry's design could just as easily appreciate a similar design by another and see this as a desireable property.


Comparable in size and function, yes. But definitely not comparable in quality.

Even a large mansion is typically constructed using a lot of cost-saving techniques, because it doesn't need the strongest materials to stand up, and doesn't require a lot of custom-built or custom-shaped parts.

Gehry's designs wouldn't be possible without the strongest and best materials and careful construction technique. Make them out of the wrong material or put the building together in the wrong order and it'd physically fall down. So, just about anything designed by Gehry requires much more labour and much better materials and construction technique to build than even the largest mansion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 29, 2014 00:40 |  #427

jetcode wrote in post #16867736 (external link)
I fully appreciate the golden mean. Trust me. I do. My original point was that nature precedes human construct which is the symbology used to describe nature such as mathematics, language, etc.

In other words, it's a universal concept in nature, like grass being green, not something made up by humans and variable across cultures (like red = 'danger' in Western cultures but 'good luck' in East Asia, or white = 'mourning' in East Asia and 'purity/cleanliness' in the West, or the swastika meaning 'good luck' in India and 'authoritarianism/fasc​ism' in the West).

pwm2 wrote in post #16867769 (external link)
The part about the golden ratio not changing over time was in response to OhLook who made a comment that it had kept its value over thousands of years despite cultural changes.

Exactly my point. That's because it's a constant of nature, not a construct of culture.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 29, 2014 01:10 |  #428

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16867889 (external link)
If there weren't objective ways to help us understand what is or isn't which those objective things (visual elements like line, shape color, etc and how they all work together or not) to help communicate a visual idea then everything would be art and we know that just is not true. Those are not the only things that determine what is or isn't.

You see people here ever day try to use objective ways to determine and judge what they determine what is or isn't. Things like RoTs. Understanding and becoming fluent in visual terms will not only help in determining what is or isn;t valid beyond what is liked or disliked.

I'll post his again and these things are being studied in every accredited college and university in the world.
http://char.txa.cornel​l.edu/language/introla​n.htm (external link)

Eric Kim, love him, hate him whatever in these instances he is right and what the link I posted is being learned buy hundreds and hundreds of art and photography students everyday world wide.
All of this like the link I posted earlier re way over simplified but you get the drift.
http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …n-lesson-4-leading-lines/ (external link)

http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …ition-lesson-1-triangles/ (external link)

http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …esson-2-figure-to-ground/ (external link)

http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …ition-lesson-3-diagonals/ (external link)

Understanding how to use these visual tools in what combination which will change from situation to situation and piece to piece frees you from pre conceived rules and can be used to help communicate ideas visually. The greats were all fluent. It takes years to master because what works in A fails miserably in B.

A great photographer once told me that either everything in the photographs is helping support the photograph and if those elements are not supporting the image then they are hurting it. Becoming fluent in the language we re all trying to speak only makes the communication on both sides easier.

Now you can believe this or not but I can tell you every exhibit I have had the curator and I have had conversations that were about how well these kinds of things were working or not in my images. Almost every art director and I have these types of conversations on every commercial shoot.

And it's not training to LIKE its learning to UNDERSTAND. Big, big difference. There are a lot of things I understand and still do not like.


You're missing the point entirely.

If a work is intended for public display, it needs to 'speak' to the public. That means 'speaking' in the lay vernacular (i.e. pictures of things, not abstract pictures of concepts, and adhering to common principles of aesthetics), not speaking in a secret artistic 'visual language' that only artists and art enthusiasts understand.

Saying that 'this work is great, you just need to learn the 'visual language' to understand it' is just like publishing a novel in Klingon and saying, 'this is a great book, you just need to learn Klingon to appreciate it', when the only thing non-insiders see is gibberish. Art insiders may understand and appreciate the work, just as Klingon speakers may understand the novel and appreciate it. To anyone else - i.e. the vast majority of the population - they are both garbage.

Now, you may say, the work is intended for consumption by art enthusiasts, so it's 'communicating' with its intended audience. But then, why display it in public, then berate them for being philistines when they don't appreciate it? It's just like displaying MRIs or ultrasound images in public, then berating the public for not understanding what they show. I wouldn't call someone uncultured or stupid for not understanding an MRI image, because it's a communication between medical professionals who speak the same medical 'language' and which, for that reason, isn't normally displayed in public. So why do 'artists' insist on creating works in their own secret language, putting it out in public, calling it 'great', then calling people uncultured barbarians for not appreciating it when it's really a communication between speakers of the same artistic 'language', not something intended for general consumption? Self-absorbed and with an inflated sense of self-importance? That's the only possible explanation.

The so-called 'great' works of the past, which art insiders and non-insiders tend to generally agree on - the works of da Vinci, Durer, Rembrandt, William Turner and the like - all communicate their narrative to the public, because they're painted or drawn in a way that anyone who isn't blind can understand and appreciate. That is, they're drawn/painted naturalistically - what the human eye (realists) or the human brain (romanticists) sees, or would see if the scene were real. In other words, a single-aspect, two-dimensional rectilinear projection of a three-dimensional perceived reality. That's the 'understand' part. The 'appreciate' part is largely cultural, but some elements - particularly natural scenes in beautiful early-morning and late-evening lighting - cross cultural boundaries, because they're seen in nature worldwide.

When visual artists moved away from naturalistic projections accessible to everybody to abstract views understood only by other artists and art connoisseurs, they stopped speaking to the public and started speaking only to art insiders. Yet they continued displaying these works in public. In other words, they did the visual equivalent of starting a public speech in English (in an English-speaking country), then switching halfway to Swahili, while expecting the public to still understand what they are saying and berating them for not knowing the language.

No-one but artists could be that arrogant.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 29, 2014 01:11 |  #429

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16867917 (external link)
Yes and Gehry's work does command a big price because he is Ghery. He worked very hard to establish a style and look to his designs and success wasn't overnight. When you see one of his designs you can usually tell it's his. If you are building a building and thats what you want the building to look like, you go to him and pay his price. And it will surely have historic significance.

To many think in terms of the one good photograph. One good photograph no more makes a great photographer than one good at bat makes an MVP. It's about bodies of work. Consistent vision. When you look at a photographers or an artists work do you know it's their work? Those are the kinds of things that help drive collectors to collect. Also who are the other artists that they have influenced.

It's usually not the artist of photographer that makes the really big $$$ on their work. They sell through a gallery and the collector might buy for 10K say. The collector saw potential in the piece or pieces and holds on to them for several years and then the collector sells for big $$$ to probably another collector. Many of these kinds of collectors use art as an investment. And one that can pay off if they make the right choices.

That's all well and good. Someone's work can be expensive because it's unique to them. But don't say that it's 'better' than someone else's work just because it's unique to them, or just because it's expensive.

'More expensive' and 'better' are not the same thing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 29, 2014 01:18 |  #430

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16867935 (external link)
So you would like to remain ignorant of why a piece is considered great and you don't like it? Yes what you like and dislike is totally subjective but there are some objective ways to help decide if a piece fails or works on those levels. It can still fail but at least there are objective ways to help evaluate and they are being used and discussed everyday in all areas of art and photography and just because you can't get your head around it does't mean its not happening. Take Palto's advice and stick your head out of the cave. It's really rewarding and insightful and I gave you a lot of places to get started.

Not at all.

Works that are considered 'great' by art fans are generally not considered 'great' by the general public. It is artists and art connoisseurs who define what is 'great' art and what isn't. What's 'great art' to them is often trash to the general public.

My audience is the general public. They think my work, and the work of many other photographers with a similar style (Ken Duncan and Peter Lik being some of the more famous names) is 'great'. Art connoisseurs generally think it's rubbish, because it's not in their secret visual language. But they're not my audience, and I don't care to speak to a group so arrogant as to think that works which are not created in a language accessible only to them and not the general public are somehow unworthy.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16868022 (external link)
Ok so you don't want to learn about visual tools that will help you communicate as a visual artist. Nothing wrong with that but don't say it's all nonsense and then in the next breath say you don't have time to learn.

If you change you mind some of the links I posted are great places to get a start.

No I don't.

I'm not a visual artist. I'm a landscape and travel photographer. I don't engage in visual communication with other artists or art connoisseurs, nor do I care to.

I communicate with the general public, who pay good money for my photos. Clearly they understand and appreciate it. The general public isn't willing to spend anywhere near as much on a printed image as art connoisseurs are, though.

Art connoisseurs say that my work is 'not art'. They say the same about most pre-Impressionist painters. I don't care what they say - my work is for the general public, not the art crowd. And I have no interest in creating work that speaks to the art crowd (and attracts their money) but doesn't speak to the general public.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 29, 2014 01:29 |  #431

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16868132 (external link)
"After all, there isn't time enough to learn everything so someone interested in studying must be very selective."

To be able to understand why some images work or don't are what we are talking about. There are a lot of photographs, paintings, and other art pieces I personally don't like but understand why they work visually and why they are considered important.

They're not important.

They're important only to people within the art world. Most of the works don't have any actual historical (not art historical), technical or scientifc importance. The vast majority of the public wouldn't know them from the scratchings of a three-year-old or the random photos of an anonymous hipster.

Only the greatly-inflated collective ego of the art world allows them to say these particular works are 'important'. If they were truly important, everyone would know them on sight.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
     
Apr 29, 2014 03:56 |  #432

Shadowblade wrote in post #16868827 (external link)
Absolutely not.

It's transcends cultures because it's universal in nature - grass is green, sky is blue

http://www.radiolab.or​g/story/211213-sky-isnt-blue/ (external link)

Listen to this and become as surprised and amazed as I was.
The key is to listen though... ;)


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 398
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 29, 2014 04:07 |  #433

andrikos wrote in post #16869005 (external link)
http://www.radiolab.or​g/story/211213-sky-isnt-blue/ (external link)

Listen to this and become as surprised and amazed as I was.
The key is to listen though... ;)

Look up at the sky in the middle of a clear day and see for yourself.

It's blue because blue light from the sun is scattered the most out of all the wavelength in the visible spectrum.

That someone else decides to call it 'green' doesn't make it so. It's still the same colour.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
andrikos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,905 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
     
Apr 29, 2014 04:50 |  #434

Shadowblade wrote in post #16869019 (external link)
Look up at the sky in the middle of a clear day and see for yourself.

It's blue because blue light from the sun is scattered the most out of all the wavelength in the visible spectrum.

That someone else decides to call it 'green' doesn't make it so. It's still the same colour.

Oh wow brilliant.
I had no idea how light worked... :rolleyes:


Think new Canon lenses are overpriced? Lots (and lots) of data will set you free!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Owain ­ Shaw
Some of my best friends are people.
Avatar
2,266 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Likes: 946
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain.
     
Apr 29, 2014 05:34 |  #435

Shadowblade wrote in post #16868833 (external link)
Comparable in size and function, yes. But definitely not comparable in quality.

Even a large mansion is typically constructed using a lot of cost-saving techniques, because it doesn't need the strongest materials to stand up, and doesn't require a lot of custom-built or custom-shaped parts.

Gehry's designs wouldn't be possible without the strongest and best materials and careful construction technique. Make them out of the wrong material or put the building together in the wrong order and it'd physically fall down. So, just about anything designed by Gehry requires much more labour and much better materials and construction technique to build than even the largest mansion.

Moving the goalposts once again. This has nothing to do with your original post.

In any case, why not comparable in quality? They surely are comparable in quality.

And if Gehry is using the strongest and best materials, and a regular mansion is not, surely that makes the Gehry mansion a better one? Assuming it is correctly assembled and not liable to fall down, we have a superior product constructed using the best materials to the highest standard - better than a large and spacious, but poorly constructed (which was actually your original point about an 'art' house) mansion of your 'normal' parameters (which seem free to change whenever you so please).


| New website. (external link) |
| Gear | Flickr (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

49,752 views & 0 likes for this thread
Renowned Photographer Jeff Mitchum's Masterpiece "Third Day" Sells For $1.8 Million
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is samcrimm
893 guests, 321 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.