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

benji25 wrote in post #16832854
I would imagine you would have to see it in person in order to understand. I am sure it was blown up huge and looks stunning. A 6 inch picture on a computer screen probably doesn't do it justice.

It was large format, so yes, I'm sure the detail was awesome.

catclaw wrote in post #16833275
It was large format, so yes, I'm sure the detail was awesome.

I got the privilege to shoot large format in grad school for an unrelated field, and its pretty amazing how detailed that century old technology is. It was a lot of fun and a lot less forgiving than digital.

Mrslinger85 wrote in post #16836145
I got the privilege to shoot large format in grad school for an unrelated field, and its pretty amazing how detailed that century old technology is. It was a lot of fun and a lot less forgiving than digital.

Yeah I've seen large format too, and it's freaky how much sharp detail is extracted out of that film.

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #16829643
I will be the first to say it....Ive seen more impressive, moving and artistic images by members here. Im going to be honest...that is ridiculous. Maybe Im not getting something but calling that pic a "masterpiece" is absurd. To top it of the tone and delivery by the photographer in the article is incredibly arrogant... This guy ego must be bigger than Mount Everest.

I was thinking the exact same thing!!!

The price for which a work of art sells has no correlation with the artistic talent of its creator.

In the art world, the name of the artist matters more than the quality of the work.

Anyone can Photoshop a giant moon into the background of a poor-to-mediocre shot of a tree silhouetted against the night sky. Generally, the final result won't be worth the paper it's printed on. But sign your name, 'Peter Lik', in the bottom right hand corner, and suddenly the same print is worth thousands.

We see it time and time again. Someone finds an average-to-good painting in a garage sale and buys it for a few dollars. The following week, they find out it was painted by Picasso and the same painting - which is, artistically, no better than it was a week ago - is suddenly worth millions.

pixelbasher wrote in post #16829536
I have never "gotten" it. the 99 cent store is a classic example of why I don't. oh that's right, it's all about the "journey"

Good luck to anyone who can take a phtoto and earn that sort of coin though, but I'd probably argue that in most cases it isn't the photo, it's the name (although I wouldn't know any of those photogs from Adam)

Cindy Sherman?

Edward Steichen?!?!?

The provincialism on display in this thread is staggering. For starters, get rid of the notion that the value of a photograph has anything whatsoever to do with the detail in the print, or even its subjective aesthetic appeal.

Second, I understand that one may not "get" some of these photographs (though not knowing who Steichen is is unforgivable). That's fine. Not all of them appeal to me, either, on an aesthetic level (Gursky, in particular). But that has absolutely nothing to do with its value at auction. There's the issue of the size of the print run, the notoriety of the print, the fame of the photographer, and any number of other issues that are wholly independent of the photograph itself.

To wit: http://petapixel.com …anonymous-online-critics/

And this is what happens when you collectivize great art: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=624FxhJlVM0

'art' arrogance...the crazy world where a piece of ****e can be considered amazing and if you question it you get labeled a Neanderthal because you don't 'get it'

The really funny part is how in that link you posted people were making valid observations, yet because the photo was taken by someone famous somehow all of those flaws were actually deliberate and 'amazing' lol...

edge100 wrote in post #16840251
Cindy Sherman?

Edward Steichen?!?!?

The provincialism on display in this thread is staggering. For starters, get rid of the notion that the value of a photograph has anything whatsoever to do with the detail in the print, or even its subjective aesthetic appeal.

Second, I understand that one may not "get" some of these photographs (though not knowing who Steichen is is unforgivable). That's fine. Not all of them appeal to me, either, on an aesthetic level (Gursky, in particular). But that has absolutely nothing to do with its value at auction. There's the issue of the size of the print run, the notoriety of the print, the fame of the photographer, and any number of other issues that are wholly independent of the photograph itself.

To wit: http://petapixel.com …anonymous-online-critics/

And this is what happens when you collectivize great art: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=624FxhJlVM0

I don't see what's so great about these artists.

Some individual works, yes. But not the bulk of their work.

The monetary value of a photo or other artwork has no correlation with its aesthetic value. A badly-composed childhood mugshot of Hitler would be worth a lot. Rembrandt could have taken a crap on a canvas, smeared it around and it'd now be worth millions.

^^lol so true...

edge100 wrote in post #16840251
Cindy Sherman?

Edward Steichen?!?!?

Second, I understand that one may not "get" some of these photographs (though not knowing who Steichen is is unforgivable).

Wouldn't know the two of them if I tripped over their tripods. No doubt they are famous in their own world. But to me this is purely a hobby, it's not a way of life. I don't get into "art", I'm not the type to drool over "art" or the creators of it. I care not about the "journey" that happened to create said "art", or the behind the scenes life dramas artists of most kinds all seem to have for some reason. I couldn't care less about it or the artist, for me it is the end result of what I'm looking at.
I'm not the kind of person who would pay $10,000 for a collection of plastic bags hanging from a clothes line purely because some "famous" person did it. To me, it is what it is at face value, not who made it.

But anyway, I'll be now taking my uncultured self down to the pub to crush empty beer cans against my forehead

We all know it's about the name and nothing more. You create the name, then make whatever you want, throw some sappy backstory behind it.... and watch the sheep with money come running.....yep, that's the art industry in a nutshell

Somebloke wrote in post #16840291
'art' arrogance...the crazy world where a piece of ****e can be considered amazing and if you question it you get labeled a Neanderthal because you don't 'get it'

The really funny part is how in that link you posted people were making valid observations, yet because the photo was taken by someone famous somehow all of those flaws were actually deliberate and 'amazing' lol...

I...I have no words.

That Cartier-Bresson is an absolutely classic realization of the concept of the 'decisive moment', which is fundamental to the history of the entire genre of street photography. It is one of perhaps 4 or 5 truly seminal works in the genre.

It's perfect. Moreover, the fact that it was taken by 'someone famous' is putting the cart before the horse. Cartier-Bresson was famous precisely because he took incredible photographs like this one, this one (which is, in my opinion, the finest photograph ever taken), and this one.

I'm sorry if you (or anyone else) don't 'get' them. That truly is your loss.

pixelbasher wrote in post #16840326
Wouldn't know the two of them if I tripped over their tripods. No doubt they are famous in their own world. But to me this is purely a hobby, it's not a way of life. I don't get into "art", I'm not the type to drool over "art" or the creators of it. I care not about the "journey" that happened to create said "art", or the behind the scenes life dramas artists of most kinds all seem to have for some reason. I couldn't care less about it or the artist, for me it is the end result of what I'm looking at.
I'm not the kind of person who would pay $10,000 for a collection of plastic bags hanging from a clothes line purely because some "famous" person did it. To me, it is what it is at face value, not who made it.

But anyway, I'll be now taking my uncultured self down to the pub to crush empty beer cans against my forehead

We all know it's about the name and nothing more. You create the name, then make whatever you want, throw some sappy backstory behind it.... and watch the sheep with money come running.....yep, that's the art industry in a nutshell

This is a stunning post. In the span of a few lines, you claim to be both completely ignorant of art AND to understand the art industry in its entirety.

If you don't 'get' it, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But don't let your ignorance of a thing turn into arrogance toward that thing.

edge100 wrote in post #16840511
I...I have no words.

That Cartier-Bresson is an absolutely classic realization of the concept of the 'decisive moment', which is fundamental to the history of the entire genre of street photography. It is one of perhaps 4 or 5 truly seminal works in the genre.

It's perfect. Moreover, the fact that it was taken by 'someone famous' is putting the cart before the horse. Cartier-Bresson was famous precisely because he took incredible photographs like this one, this one (which is, in my opinion, the finest photograph ever taken), and this one.

I'm sorry if you (or anyone else) don't 'get' them. That truly is your loss.

They all look like junk to me.

I don't judge a work by its history, the creative process behind it, its creator or its price. I judge it by what it looks like on the piece of paper in front of me. And there's nothing in those photos which make them look any different from the millions of snapshots taken every day by people using iPhones. If I had taken one of those photos, I'd have deleted it.

edge100 wrote in post #16840511
I...I have no words.

That Cartier-Bresson is an absolutely classic realization of the concept of the 'decisive moment', which is fundamental to the history of the entire genre of street photography. It is one of perhaps 4 or 5 truly seminal works in the genre.

It's perfect. Moreover, the fact that it was taken by 'someone famous' is putting the cart before the horse. Cartier-Bresson was famous precisely because he took incredible photographs like this one, this one (which is, in my opinion, the finest photograph ever taken), and this one.

I'm sorry if you (or anyone else) don't 'get' them. That truly is your loss.

Yes so much ignorance and attacks on those that aren't (Platos Cave). The sad part is that ignorance has a cure but so many have no desire to learn. They only want to attack what they don't know, whats outside the cave, and learning has never been easier.

I guess modern art has nothing at all to do with aesthetics and everything to do with communication of 'ideas', as if that 'message' is of more importance than actually creating a beautiful image/sculpture/buildi​ng. Which is why it's become basically irrelevant to all but a few cognoscenti and rich investors buying them simply as a store of wealth.

I can appreciate classical artists - Durer, da Vinci, Rembrandt, even van Gogh. Their final product was the image itself - the piece of work you see in front of you - with its impeccable craftsmanship and great aesthetic sense. In contrast, most 20th-21st century 'art' seems to be more about the process and the artist than about the final product - wrapping buildings or whole islands in plastic, boring photos taken in bad light, sculptures that don't look like anything. Which is why they're more-or-less irrelevant to most people.