Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17245791
The purpose of this thread was clearly stated by sjones in the 2nd post….

And people's views about who supposedly is and who supposedly is not qualified to express his opinion of a given artwork are, of course, a point central to this thread. That's partly because one poster commented that a photographer's work cannot be appreciated by anyone who does not know the concepts the photographer has been developing her entire career and partly because you quoted and linked a commentary in which it's said that no one should refer to an artwork as bad unless he can "lay claim to a high level of expertise."

I disagree on both counts, which some have characterized as an ignorant and uneducated position.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17245791
Everyone can make a comment but the key is which comments are valid…?

An individual's artistic preferences are not made valid or rendered invalid based on things such his "level of expertise," how many art-history books he has read, whether he knows that the artist has been developing a certain concept for a long time, or whether he regards himself as more educated than those with whom he disagrees.

"I like the works of Cindy Sherman" is no more or less a valid opinion than "I don't like the works of Cindy Sherman."

Yet again, financial considerations—specula​ting on whether certain works will increase in value and are therefore good investments—are a separate issue.

Tedder wrote in post #17245887
"I like the works of Cindy Sherman" is no more or less a valid opinion than "I don't like the works of Cindy Sherman."

you may like what you choose. none of any ones business, your fluorescent taste is your own personal issue to deal with.

and you can't have a valid critical standpoint if you don't know what you're talking about. a that's a big difference.

gjl711 wrote in post #17245743
Problem is that it is not the quality of the photos that are fetching the high prices. . . . Most of these photos are rather ordinary but they have a great line of BS backing them up along with a strong personality pushing the "this is art" thing.

Much cognitive art, photographic and other, is made as a form of social criticism. The photos aren't exhibited as stand-alone photos, to be judged the same way as portraits or sports shots or wildlife studies. A series of them is meant to support a story, and you have to have the story. You might think of this genre as commentary on society, made by people who either can't write or prefer to use a visual form.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17245761
Yeah and I thought I was getting your back by deflecting some of the heat my way

Absolutley the last time that happens. How fast they'll turn on ya...

Hey, I'm only speaking up for not hitting and not hitting back. And I started by criticizing the other guy's hits, remember? Too much hitting forces the mods into the role of playground monitor, and sometimes they shut down the thread.

Tedder wrote in post #17245770
As to your asides: I'm sorry that you're disappointed but more so that you're not interested in adding your views about who is and who is not qualified to express his opinion of a given artwork, which is a point central to this thread.

There's a recursive issue. I'm not qualified to say who's qualified and who isn't. Anyone can express an opinion. The real question is which opinions are worth listening to.

Tedder wrote in post #17245887
"I like the works of Cindy Sherman" is no more or less a valid opinion than "I don't like the works of Cindy Sherman."

Those aren't statements of opinion. They're statements of taste or preference. An opinion is what you think, not what you like or dislike.

Likes and dislikes are unassailable. Opinions can be argued with.

If artistic taste is not a matter of one's education in the field, five year old child's one is as valid as Picasso's or Frank's. If that's not an uneducated statement, I'm not sure what is.

It was Frank who said the great tragedy of photography is people assume its obvious, that even a child can read a photograph. But then you need to know who Frank was and the context of his work, and that's boring right, its easier to say "i dont like it".

ziemowit wrote in post #17245898
you may like what you choose. none of any ones business, your fluorescent taste is your own personal issue to deal with.

and you can't have a valid critical standpoint if you don't know what you're talking about. a that's a big difference.

I challenged your statement in post 41 that a person cannot appreciate a work of art without knowing the concept behind it.

I do not believe that a person must know what "concept" is behind a Cindy Sherman photo to appreciate it any more than a person must know the "concepts" behind every work in the National Gallery of Art before he can appreciate them. To hold that a certain "level of expertise" (to quote a quotation from another poster) is required to appreciate art closes it off to a whole lot of people. It's elitist.

By the way, are you willing and able to define "valid critical standpoint"? Can two people who disagree concerning a work of art both have a valid critical standpoint? If so, by what process do we determine which is the more valid?

OhLook wrote in post #17245924
Much cognitive art, photographic and other, is made as a form of social criticism. The photos aren't exhibited as stand-alone photos, to be judged the same way as portraits or sports shots or wildlife studies. A series of them is meant to support a story, and you have to have the story. You might think of this genre as commentary on society, made by people who either can't write or prefer to use a visual form....

My point exactly. If you want to excel in the world of art, don't concentrate in the quality, concentrate on the story. make it compelling enough and even the poorest quality image can earn millions. That, and also print it huge. Huge pictures tend to scream art.

OhLook wrote in post #17245937
Those aren't statements of opinion. They're statements of taste or preference. An opinion is what you think, not what you like or dislike.

Likes and dislikes are unassailable. Opinions can be argued with.

Your tsk-tsking has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It won't win an argument for you; it only makes you look irritable and picky.

Following is the point, in the event you'd care to address it:

An individual's artistic preferences are not made valid or rendered invalid based on things such his "level of expertise," how many art-history books he has read, whether he knows that the artist has been developing a certain concept for a long time, or whether he regards himself as more educated than those with whom he disagrees.

gjl711 wrote in post #17245983
My point exactly. If you want to excel in the world of art, don't concentrate in the quality, concentrate on the story. make it compelling enough and even the poorest quality image can earn millions. That, and also print it huge. Huge pictures tend to scream art.

Poorest quality? Have you ever seen an Edward Weston print printed by Weston in person?There is nothing I have ever seen on a forum that comes close. His prints are breathtaking. Compelling according to who and if it's crap then what is all the other images that all look a like? Sub crap? Maybe those that think these are just crap might need to spend some time reevaluating how they think?

Tedder wrote in post #17245979
I challenged your statement in post 41 that a person cannot appreciate a work of art without knowing the concept behind it.

I do not believe that a person must know what "concept" is behind a Cindy Sherman photo to appreciate it any more than a person must know the "concepts" behind every work in the National Gallery of Art before he can appreciate them. To hold that a certain "level of expertise" (to quote a quotation from another poster) is required to appreciate art closes it off to a whole lot of people. It's elitist.

By the way, are you willing and able to define "valid critical standpoint"? Can two people who disagree concerning a work of art both have a valid critical standpoint? If so, by what process do we determine which is the more valid?

You may not believe it, but the concepts are the backbone of art, all the artist talk and write about them openly and always have since the ancient Greece, if you are not interested in what they want to express through their work, you're just looking at the surface. We are not talking about who is right here, we are talking about the very basic conditions that need to be met to even have a discussion.

ziemowit wrote in post #17246011
You may not believe it, but the concepts are the backbone of art, all the artist talk and write about them openly and always have since the ancient Greece, if you are not interested in what they want to express through their work, you're just looking at the surface. We are not talking about who is right here, we are talking about the very basic conditions that need to be met to even have a discussion.

Yep, 2000+ years of two dimensional work to help us decide and evaluate.

Ok, to give a fun example:

A Martian walks into a Gothic cathedral, full of funny looking sculptures, stained glassed windows and all that jazz. How can he judge the religious art without the concept of Christianity, middle age philosophy and history?

Then a guide walks up to him and says: you know, the fact that the column shapes alternate between round and square means that in that period the logical trends in philosophy were on the rise as oppose to the mystical ones, and the architect was in that way expressing the trust in human reason and capability to grasp the laws of universe.

You catch my drift?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17246029
Yep, 2000+ years of two dimensional work to help us decide and evaluate.

Lot more years than that -- include the cave paintings ... regardless of the motivation (religious, or fear, or hedonist predictions or assistance) the idea of these cave artists expressed images of the mind, no matter how crude we might think of the realism, or lack of it - there's no doubt of its artistic merit.

The thought processes that create art begin in the mind, and the expression of those ideas toward another person through any media becomes the craft of transmitting those ideas. We can't lose sight of method when we dissect art either, or we lose the concept. We can't have one without the other, if we ignore method, then we have no way to understand an artistic vision.

Can I say... I just don't get most of these?

The historical ones I do love. The concept is immediately clear and so is the story.

But some of the others - especially Weston's - I just can't get as it is presented on the website. And then someone commented "Oh that Weston is a masterpiece!".

I do think I would be able to appreciate most of them more if I knew the concept. Especially Weston's, I guess?

*confused* Well, I guess I am not someone who is used to look at art, lol!

ziemowit wrote in post #17246011
You may not believe it, but the concepts are the backbone of art, all the artist talk and write about them openly and always have since the ancient Greece, if you are not interested in what they want to express through their work, you're just looking at the surface. We are not talking about who is right here, we are talking about the very basic conditions that need to be met to even have a discussion.

That's fine, but does it really address the objection I raised to your claim that to appreciate a work of art it's necessary to know "the concept behind it"?

My position is that if you entered the National Gallery of Art and stood looking at a Rembrandt, you might just appreciate it even without knowing "the concept behind it" and maybe even without having read a few art-history books before entering the gallery.

So, I disagree with the standards you've set forth for who can appreciate and speak about a work of art and under what conditions.