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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 29 Oct 2014 (Wednesday) 04:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.

 
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Oct 31, 2014 14:24 |  #46

Tedder wrote in post #17244153 (external link)
Yes, but only upon getting a thumbs-up from Cindy Sherman can those poor rubes rest in the assurance that they've received approval from on high.

not very likely.


website (external link) / flickr (external link) / ello (external link) / twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
724 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2003
     
Oct 31, 2014 14:44 |  #47

I just bought a new flame jacket, so will risk this statement:

An artist does art for the sake of artistic expression, and pretty much don't care if anyone else likes or dislikes it, or buys it. Artists do art for themselves.

If anyone likes it, buys it, or invests in it, that is a bonus to any artist.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
367 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 31, 2014 14:51 |  #48

ziemowit wrote in post #17244167 (external link)
not very likely.

True. The approval of Cindy Sherman and those of us sophisticated enough to appreciate her work would be too much for those silly gits to hope for.

But let 'em go on dreaming, huh? :-o


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
724 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2003
     
Oct 31, 2014 14:56 |  #49

Tedder wrote in post #17244215 (external link)
True. The approval of Cindy Sherman and those of us sophisticated enough to appreciate her work would be too much for those silly gits to hope for.

But let 'em go on dreaming, huh? :-o

SO anyone who doesn't like or appreciate her art is by definition "unsophisticated" -- not hardly. That's why art is art ... all it takes is the artist, it doesn't take approval nor appreciation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Oct 31, 2014 14:58 |  #50

monkey44 wrote in post #17244200 (external link)
I just bought a new flame jacket, so will risk this statement:

An artist does art for the sake of artistic expression, and pretty much don't care if anyone else likes or dislikes it, or buys it. Artists do art for themselves.

If anyone likes it, buys it, or invests in it, that is a bonus to any artist.

that's a very romantic idea, which was not true throughout the history.

form ancient Greek sculptors, very well paid, to Michaelangelo who amassed a vast fortune through his art, to Durer, Rembrandt, Rubens, and of course all the modern artists, high art was always connected with big money, and rightly so. people who shape the culture of the epoch deserve to be paid well, if you ask me.


website (external link) / flickr (external link) / ello (external link) / twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:00 |  #51

Tedder wrote in post #17244215 (external link)
True. The approval of Cindy Sherman and those of us sophisticated enough to appreciate her work would be too much for those silly gits to hope for.

But let 'em go on dreaming, huh? :-o

you can take fluorescent landscapes till you die mate, and god bless you.


website (external link) / flickr (external link) / ello (external link) / twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:02 |  #52

monkey44 wrote in post #17244223 (external link)
SO anyone who doesn't like or appreciate her art is by definition "unsophisticated" -- not hardly. That's why art is art ... all it takes is the artist, it doesn't take approval nor appreciation.

I never said that. I said you need to know what the work is about to evaluate it. if you just look at the image, its looking at a math equation and going 'meh'. same goes for all art, ancient or modern. 'i dont like it, therefore its bad art' is an approach o the uneducated.


website (external link) / flickr (external link) / ello (external link) / twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
724 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2003
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:06 |  #53

ziemowit wrote in post #17244229 (external link)
that's a very romantic idea, which was not true throughout the history.

form ancient Greek sculptors, very well paid, to Michaelangelo who amassed a vast fortune through his art, to Durer, Rembrandt, Rubens, and of course all the modern artists, high art was always connected with big money, and rightly so. people who shape the culture of the epoch deserve to be paid well, if you ask me.

But a true artist requires no pay -- if any one gets paid, it doesn't change the definition of art or artist. Because an artist receives pay, does not detract nor add to the definition.

As a matter of fact, my sense of artists changes when the artist receives pay on a commission, because that artist then wears two hats. The artist = creator of art, and the craftsman who creates designated art for a fee.

Can be the same person involved in two different avenues for expression. Once the artist accepts a commission, the artist becomes a craftsman, creating the piece of art thru another person's concept. One participates in the artistic expression when an artist creates, but one commissions a craftsman to create for the commissioner. Two different concepts. Can still be the same person tho' ... no reason to deny $$$.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,741 posts
Gallery: 138 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4401
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:07 |  #54

Tedder wrote in post #17244153 (external link)
Yes, but only upon getting a thumbs-up from Cindy Sherman can those poor rubes rest in the assurance that they've received approval from on high.

Cindy had to start somewhere. She wasn't always selling like she has been. Many here don't get the bodies of relating work concept. many here just keep growing horizontally but not vertically. They learn all the technical things but have little knowledge of the visual side of the coin. No interest in history. And history is SO important. Many just don't like anything else but their own work. The guys and gals creating work that is fetching the big bucks are of course the idiots and talentless hacks and the ones creating for all their buddies on a forum are the cutting edge of creativity :lol::lol::lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:13 |  #55

monkey44 wrote in post #17244251 (external link)
But a true artist requires no pay -- if any one gets paid, it doesn't change the definition of art or artist. Because an artist receives pay, does not detract nor add to the definition.

As a matter of fact, my sense of artists changes when the artist receives pay on a commission, because that artist then wears two hats. The artist = creator of art, and the craftsman who creates designated art for a fee.

Can be the same person involved in two different avenues for expression. Once the artist accepts a commission, the artist becomes a craftsman, creating the piece of art thru another person's concept. One participates in the artistic expression when an artist creates, but one commissions a craftsman to create for the commissioner. Two different concepts. Can still be the same person tho' ... no reason to deny $$$.

Rembrandt was a master craftsman, and one of the greatest artist of all time. he paid the price for his dedication as well when his honesty fallen out of fashion, and died poor.

approach to money and art is a personal thing, you get people like Gursky who just do their stuff and sell it and people like Koons who will do what the public will buy.


website (external link) / flickr (external link) / ello (external link) / twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
367 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:27 |  #56

ziemowit wrote in post #17244233 (external link)
you can take fluorescent landscapes till you die mate, and god bless you.

Well, not everyone can take pictures of people on escalators like the real artists do.


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:30 |  #57

Tedder wrote in post #17244295 (external link)
Well, not everyone can take pictures of people on escalators like the real artists do.

but everyone talking about what art is should read at least one art history book in their life.


website (external link) / flickr (external link) / ello (external link) / twitter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
367 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:33 |  #58

monkey44 wrote in post #17244223 (external link)
SO anyone who doesn't like or appreciate her art is by definition "unsophisticated"...

That seems to be the gist of post 41, yes.


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
367 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:37 |  #59

ziemowit wrote in post #17244303 (external link)
but everyone talking about what art is should read at least one art history book in their life.

Oh, I wholeheartedly support that rule, of course. In fact, those who've read the most books on art history have the very best opinions. :eek:


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Numenorean
Cream of the Crop
5,013 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2011
     
Oct 31, 2014 15:41 |  #60

None of them. They are all crap except for the first one.


Gear List

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

18,850 views & 0 likes for this thread
Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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 RenoH
752 guests, 378 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.