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.

 
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6321
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:56 |  #136

doughnut,

Heres a cloud that looks a lot the nude.
https://home.manhattan​.edu ….php?cat=16&ima​ge_id=4743 (external link)

Weston has such strong vision his nudes looked like clouds and his clouds looked like shells and his shells looked like peppers and his peppers looked like nudes. No matter what the subject matter or equipment.

Here's a couple more
#2 and #5
https://home.manhattan​.edu ….php?cat=16&ima​ge_id=4743 (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: 7
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:58 |  #137

Of course you can appreciate the surface, but it's like licking a candy through the wrapper, and not why the artist created the work. Everyone is free to do what they want, I don't care really, and I'm not setting standards.

I just get pissed off by comments like: its all **** i dont like it. That is just a vulgar arrogant display of ignorance and specially by people who claim to produce art themselves.


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...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6321
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 15:59 |  #138

Like I said anyone can say anything but the real question is the statement valid or does it carry any weight. Usually one can tell by the critique if the one speaking has any real knowledge of what is is talking about. Just like a Dr can usually tell right away if he is communicating with another healthcare professional.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6321
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 16:01 |  #139

ziemowit wrote in post #17246103 (external link)
Of course you can appreciate the surface, but it's like licking a candy through the wrapper, and not why the artist created the work. Everyone is free to do what they want, I don't care really, and I'm not setting standards.

I just get pissed off by comments like: its all **** i dont like it. That is just a vulgar arrogant display of ignorance and specially by people who claim to produce art themselves.

Exactly and I'd throw it's crap or it's boring into that to...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
380 posts
Likes: 83
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 01, 2014 16:19 |  #140

ziemowit wrote in post #17246037 (external link)
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?



Your "drift" all along has been that if an earthling who visits the POTN forum says he dislikes this photograph (external link), that proves he's ignorant and that a supposedly more artistically sophisticated person—one with a "valid critical standpoint"—must step in and help him adjust his opinion. :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
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Nov 01, 2014 16:23 |  #141

"like" or "do not like" is not a valid option in critical discussion. it is an option on the playground.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
380 posts
Likes: 83
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 01, 2014 16:32 as a reply to  @ ziemowit's post |  #142

Someone who has read at least three art-history books and believes he holds a "valid critical standpoint" must step in and carefully explicate how "purposely gaudy" photographs differ from "fluorescent landscapes."

Then and only then can the rest of us know what to think. :)


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...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6321
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 16:42 |  #143

Anyone is free to like or dislike anything and thats fine. But for critical examination Sheman's piece you posted the link to has classic elements like repeating shapes, triangular composition, use of warm colors and a strong diagonal creates a tension along with the color pallet and the breaking up of the pattern on the floor. That is further enhanced by not being 100% sure of what has happened. Those elements alone would make the image worthy of further discussion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziemowit
Goldmember
Avatar
1,241 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Nov 2011
Location: London
     
Nov 01, 2014 16:42 |  #144

some of us apparently don't want to think at all, just like to state their opinions, likes and dislikes, (since everyone can have a valid opinion right? no need to understand things, lets just roll on opinions, that for sure will benefit humankind), believe education unnecessary (does that stretch to their children as well or just to themselves?) and will of course continue with fluorescence, and god bless them on their way.

they will of course also continue to critique the work of leading figures in contemporary culture, because they are entitled to their opinions, by the fact they can type I guess?

lucky the mentioned figures will never read or care about those opinions and will continue to provide us with those boring artworks.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DoughnutPhoto
Senior Member
513 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 21
Joined Aug 2014
Location: the Netherlands
     
Nov 01, 2014 19:15 |  #145

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17246100 (external link)
doughnut,

Heres a cloud that looks a lot the nude.
https://home.manhattan​.edu ….php?cat=16&ima​ge_id=4743 (external link)

Weston has such strong vision his nudes looked like clouds and his clouds looked like shells and his shells looked like peppers and his peppers looked like nudes. No matter what the subject matter or equipment.

Here's a couple more
#2 and #5
https://home.manhattan​.edu ….php?cat=16&ima​ge_id=4743 (external link)

Well, that IS interesting. The two photographs alone don't fully understand the concept or how he went about taking the photographs... but it's quite interesting and there must've been quite a bit of effort to match up the photographs. I'll try and look up some stuff about this tomorrow :).


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
19,497 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7376
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Nov 01, 2014 19:56 |  #146

Tedder wrote in post #17245996 (external link)
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.

I do believe you're mocking me. Are you going to start being nice anytime soon? How much time do you expect me to throw away trying to explain to you that different kinds of art require different kinds of attention or that tastes and opinions aren't the same thing, when there's no evidence that you want to do anything but whine about elitism?


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
19,497 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7376
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Nov 01, 2014 20:04 |  #147

Tedder wrote in post #17246094 (external link)
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.

You might appreciate it on sensory grounds. If you later learn more about Rembrandt, his time and place in history, and other aspects of the context in which the painting was created, your appreciation will be enriched when you visit the gallery again. Appreciation has a range of degrees of depth. It goes beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it."


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
380 posts
Likes: 83
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 01, 2014 21:45 as a reply to  @ OhLook's post |  #148

In hopes that I can steer you back on topic and away from your distracting whining and complaining, OhLook, I'll repeat the point, as follows:

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.


Where, if anywhere, do you disagree?


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
380 posts
Likes: 83
Joined Jan 2009
     
Nov 01, 2014 21:53 |  #149

OhLook wrote in post #17246492 (external link)
You might appreciate it on sensory grounds. If you later learn more about Rembrandt, his time and place in history, and other aspects of the context in which the painting was created, your appreciation will be enriched when you visit the gallery again. Appreciation has a range of degrees of depth. It goes beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it."


Thank you for addressing the point at last. Perhaps the statement on this topic to which I first responded lacked the nuances of "enriched" appreciation, appreciation on "sensory grounds," and "range of degrees of depth" of appreciation. He said simply "appreciation."

Given that there's disagreement on that point, among others, it's unclear which of you has attained the higher "level of expertise" and therefore possesses the true "valid critical standpoint."


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
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
19,497 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7376
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Nov 01, 2014 21:57 |  #150

Tedder--

One. More. Time.

Preferences and opinions are two different things. When you say you like an artwork or you don't like an artwork, or you prefer this work over that one, your statement is a report on a fact about yourself. (We assume you're speaking truthfully.) Your liking or disliking something isn't "valid" or "invalid." It just is.

When you say an artwork is good or it's bad, that's an opinion. An opinion can be well informed or ill informed. That's where validity comes in. Not all opinions are equally valid. Knowing art history is among the qualifications that make a more valid opinion likely.

So there you go. Expertise and so on don't render a preference more valid. They render an opinion more valid.

Now, what about that niceness thing? Your last post (EDIT: Post #148) contained more insults. Is that the end of them? Please note that I graciously answered your question despite your lack of respect.


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

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

21,543 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 percy seaton smythe
539 guests, 249 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.