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.

 
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
367 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 01, 2014 13:54 |  #121

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17245791 (external link)
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 (external link)
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 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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Nov 01, 2014 14:02 |  #122

Tedder wrote in post #17245887 (external link)
"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.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,110 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4161
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Nov 01, 2014 14:18 |  #123

gjl711 wrote in post #17245743 (external link)
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 (external link)
Yeah and I thought I was getting your back by deflecting some of the heat my way :lol::lol::lol:

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

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 (external link)
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.


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
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,110 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4161
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Nov 01, 2014 14:25 |  #124

Tedder wrote in post #17245887 (external link)
"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.


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
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Nov 01, 2014 14:26 |  #125

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".


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
     
Nov 01, 2014 14:50 |  #126

ziemowit wrote in post #17245898 (external link)
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?


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
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
54,404 posts
Likes: 1780
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Nov 01, 2014 14:51 |  #127

OhLook wrote in post #17245924 (external link)
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. ;) :)


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
367 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 01, 2014 14:58 |  #128

OhLook wrote in post #17245937 (external link)
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.


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
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,707 posts
Gallery: 134 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4389
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 14:59 |  #129

gjl711 wrote in post #17245983 (external link)
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?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:04 |  #130

Tedder wrote in post #17245979 (external link)
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.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,707 posts
Gallery: 134 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4389
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:14 |  #131

ziemowit wrote in post #17246011 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:24 |  #132

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?


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
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:34 |  #133

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17246029 (external link)
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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DoughnutPhoto
Senior Member
513 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 21
Joined Aug 2014
Location: the Netherlands
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:41 as a reply to  @ ziemowit's post |  #134

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!


Canon 5d, 60d, 17-40mm L, 30mm Art, 50mm, 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
367 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:52 |  #135

ziemowit wrote in post #17246011 (external link)
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.


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

18,834 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 dustin.maciejewski
453 guests, 395 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.