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

Shadowblade wrote in post #16865074
So, what makes these vapid snapshots of banal subjects so 'special' and so much 'better' than other work? Is it the fact that someone paid a few million for it? Or the fact that Gursky's name (or some other famous name) is signed on the back of it?

C-H-O-I-C-E
We didn't see 7 billion show up to pay several million for a piece. Most likely a handful bid and the highest bidder won.
C-H-O-I-C-E

And it really doesn't matter what their criteria of interest is. The transaction occurred.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16865026
They're depicting a narrative (like the Bayeux Tapestry), not a statement or an abstract idea. There's a huge difference between the two.

The narrative in the case of a picture of Christ separating Heaven and Hell is also a pretty clear statement in my book. The Bayeux Tapestry was also a loaded narrative intended to make a precise statement. Whilst we're splitting hairs, the difference isn't that huge, and the two hairs can be intertwined again.

jetcode wrote in post #16865077
C-H-O-I-C-E
We didn't see 7 billion show up to pay several million for a piece. Most likely a handful bid and the highest bidder won.
C-H-O-I-C-E

And it really doesn't matter what their criteria of interest is. The transaction occurred.

Exactly.

It's expensive because someone decided to pay that much for it.

That fact alone doesn't necessarily make it good, or even any better than the thousands of shots out there which don't sell.

Owain Shaw wrote in post #16865095
The narrative in the case of a picture of Christ separating Heaven and Hell is also a pretty clear statement in my book. The Bayeux Tapestry was also a loaded narrative intended to make a precise statement. Whilst we're splitting hairs, the difference isn't that huge, and the two hairs can be intertwined again.

That's not a statement - it's a pictorial depiction of a story. Other classic works are realistic (if not actually real), pictorial depictions of a scene or a person, actual or imagined.

A statement doesn't depict a specific scene or event or tell a story. It doesn't describe anything. If a classic, narrative work is a story or a detailed descriptive piece, a 'statement' work is the pictorial equivalent of a sign - a sign that could say anything from 'Stop' to 'No More War' to 'God Hates Fags' (to name some of the more notorious recent examples), but which doesn't describe a scene or an event.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16864913
When someone says, 'It's trash', it is implied that they think it's trash. A bit like saying, 'It's going to rain'. It means they think it's going to rain, not that it definitely is.

You can argue all you like, but my point remains. People shouldn't say it's going to rain unless they know. Besides, the two statements differ importantly in verifiability. After it rains or it doesn't, the person who predicted rain is shown to have been either right or wrong. You can wait until the end of time to find out whether a photo is trash.

Anthropologists would disagree. For instance, some artworks in nonliterate cultures are created as part of a religion. And when did the modern sense of the word "art" begin to exclude works created to represent a subject realistically (e.g., landscapes) and nonrepresentational works that explore color and form?

Owain gave you the counterexample of religious art, which is so obvious that I immediately thought of it as well. All those halos around the heads of saints--don't you think they make a statement that has nothing to do with realism?

As opposed to numerous classical paintings of heaven, hell, and the Garden of Eden, which must have been popular tourist destinations since so many Europeans knew exactly what they looked like.

That was a response to "Most people who buy art choose works they like to look at." Do I have to say that I include paintings and photos in the category "art"? Are you now excluding them from that category? Excuse me, but I suspect you of using trickery, switching definitions in midstream, to win a point.

A prediction of what one identified person will do isn't the only kind of "specific." Much psychology concerns the behavior of groups. If one kind of appeal in a message about health gets 50% more patients to comply with their medication regimens than another kind of appeal, this isn't a vague generalization; it's information that the public-health authorities can use. They don't need to know the names of the additional patients. You're not entitled to redefine psychology to suit your opinion of it.

The psychologists who do the same sort of work call it psychological research.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16865131
That's not a statement - it's a pictorial depiction of a story. Other classic works are realistic (if not actually real), pictorial depictions of a scene or a person, actual or imagined.

A statement doesn't depict a specific scene or event or tell a story. It doesn't describe anything. If a classic, narrative work is a story or a detailed descriptive piece, a 'statement' work is the pictorial equivalent of a sign - a sign that could say anything from 'Stop' to 'No More War' to 'God Hates Fags' (to name some of the more notorious recent examples), but which doesn't describe a scene or an event.

According to your definitions.

I think it's quite clear these paintings are stating something other than a linear story, they are hinting at something and created to convey a very particular message, an intentional statement - in some cases along the lines of "God Hates Adulterers".

Again, going out now ... better things to do.

OhLook wrote in post #16865152
You can argue all you like, but my point remains. People shouldn't say it's going to rain unless they know. Besides, the two statements differ importantly in verifiability. After it rains or it doesn't, the person who predicted rain is shown to have been either right or wrong. You can wait until the end of time to find out whether a photo is trash.

Shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't.

The fact is, people do. That's how the language is used.

The concept there that you refer to as 'art' is not a representation of an abstract idea or any sort of statement on society. It is a depiction of events, places and people, real or mythological. Without an idea or a statement behind it, many would regard it as a picture or a painting, not as a work of art.

They began to exclude realistic works as soon as art insiders began disregarding descriptive works (works primarily designed to depict events, stories or locations) and ignoring quality of craftsmanship in favour of 'statement' works, and those where the concept matters more than the execution. When many art critics began denigrating pictorial depictions of things (objects, places and people, as opposed to ideas) as 'not art', these things were excluded from 'art'.

I wouldn't call that a statement. A halo was simply an artistic convention to describe someone as holy.

Religious art tells a story or describes an event in that religion's mythology.

No, but they're well-enough described in literature to form an image of a scene that might take place there.

And classical images of hell and heaven look like realistic (as opposed to real) places. Abstract works don't look like anything.

Not all paintings or photos are art. According to many art cognoscenti (and I know quite a few - my line of work tends to generate collectors) most of them aren't 'art', because they aren't making a statement or sending a message. They are merely what they are - no more, no less, just whatever's in the picture. They certainly wouldn't regard most landscapes, cityscapes or portraits as art - the landscape photo or painting merely describes the landscape, the portrait is merely a depiction of the person, and there is no statement or 'message' behind any of them.

Nor are you entitled to define psychology as only the parts of it (group behaviours) that make sense.

I don't know anything about the psychology of groups - I deal with individuals. And the psychology of individuals is as vague as anything out there. Clinical psychologists always think they 'understand' a person - then that person goes and does something completely unpredicted.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16840581
Ansel Adam's work is great not because he took them (and not someone else) or how he took them, but because they're aesthetically-beautiful images.

For sure. Bresson has some awesome shots but I agree the ones the guy linked aren't the best (cept the bicycle one which I love).

The landscape shot in the original post is GREAT imho. Of the "most expensive photographs" that someone posted though, yeah, imho a grand total of 2 of them were actually good photos.. in my opinion. But art is subjective. And hey---if those people made a crapton of money for their "art"...good for them lol.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16865195
They certainly wouldn't regard most landscapes, cityscapes or portraits as art - the landscape photo or painting merely describes the landscape, the portrait is merely a depiction of the person, and there is no statement or 'message' behind any of them.

But by that definition the mona lisa would not be art. There is no statement or message behind it. It's deliberately vague. The whole art must have a message or statement and can't just "be" thing was one of those communist country things lol.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16865104
It's expensive because someone decided to pay that much for it.

That fact alone doesn't necessarily make it good, or even any better than the thousands of shots out there which don't sell.

Whom are you arguing against? I haven't seen anyone in this thread proposing to rank artworks for quality by the prices last paid for them. A sale took place, that's all.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16865195
Shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't.

The fact is, people do. That's how the language is used.

Yes, language is often used imprecisely. "It's going to rain" implies that the speaker knows. "It's trash" implies that the speaker is qualified to designate something as trash.

Now you're defining art as conceptual art and nothing else? No, I'm sorry, other things count as art.

Art hasn't been redefined so radically for its use among English speakers generally. In fact, I'd need evidence before I believed that it's been redefined among insiders. Art critics still review shows of realistic works.

The halo is the painter's way of telling viewers that the character is holy and that the concept of holiness is meaningful. It certainly isn't a realistic representation of visible reality. It's a symbol, used for conveying a message. Now I suppose you can argue about a real or imagined difference between "statement" and "message."

God on a throne resting on clouds isn't realistic: did gravity take the day off?

See above. Art is a bigger tent than that.

Straw man. I never excluded the study of individuals from psychology. Nor did I say that only the study of groups makes sense; that, apparently, is your idea, not mine. There's clinical psychology, and there's experimental psychology. Both fields reside within psychology. Both involve research.

Everyone deals with individuals. Your generalization about what clinical psychologists "always" do has the same status as your judgment that a photographic image is trash.

Nevertheless, it's refreshing to find that you admit there's something you don't know anything about.

...Shadowblade: what is your opinion of the people who buy your work?

Shadowblade wrote in post #16865104
Exactly.

It's expensive because someone decided to pay that much for it.

That fact alone doesn't necessarily make it good, or even any better than the thousands of shots out there which don't sell.

No doubt there is a system which divides art into consumer art and investment art. That's the way the world is wired. And it is in fact beneficial to professional artists who make a career in the field. The investment field is looking for ways to shelter income and art works wonders. An example: I could have picked up a Norman Rockwell for $50k in 1984. What a gorgeous piece. If you have never seen a Rockwell you owe it to yourself to see one. That same piece today is fetching 7 figures. It took 30 years granted but where else can you find that level of investment return?

What constitutes investment art is governed by a group of individuals in the professional art world who spend their entire life in the field. They look for trends. They look for movement. They look for pedigree and excellence. They look for good investments. They serve a high profile clientele. It is a reality that won't go away any time soon because you or I disagree with their taste or process. It is their world.

jetcode wrote in post #16865890
That same piece today is fetching 7 figures. It took 30 years granted but where else can you find that level of investment return?

Property. Australian property has achieved much better returns than that, as has many of our blue chip stocks.

Somebloke wrote in post #16865957
Property. Australian property has achieved much better returns than that, as has many of our blue chip stocks.

Then you can afford to pay $1.8 million for a photograph. Congratulations.

OhLook wrote in post #16865442
Whom are you arguing against? I haven't seen anyone in this thread proposing to rank artworks for quality by the prices last paid for them. A sale took place, that's all.

People are impressed by the work solely because it sold for 2.5 million or whatever. They think that, because it sold for 2.5 million, it must be a great work and, therefore, better than works that sell for $100, $1000 or $20000. But there's nothing, other than the price and the name of the photographer, to distinguish the work from thousands of others out there.

Come to some galleries here in Fitzroy and you'll hear critics and viewers constantly asking, 'Where's the message?' and 'What is the artist trying to tell us?', and pooh-poohing anything without that element as 'not art'. It's all about the avant-garde works. The same people will regard a crucifix in urine or sheep pickled in vinegar/wine/some other liquid (both actual works which have been exhibited here) as fine art.

See above.

It's a statement contained within a narrative. Like a sentence within a story.

Completely different from a lot of modern works, where the statement stands alone, without the context of a story, descriptive work or other narrative.

'Realistic' in the sense that it's something that looks like what human eyes could see, if the scene were happening in front of us. It's why I said 'realistic', not 'real'.

In the same way that much of Dali's work is realistic - perspective and projection are respected and things still look like the things they are, in a way that human eyes could see them if the scenes were happening in front of us.

In contrast, much of Picasso's work, and that of other cubists, definitely aren't realistic - subjects are viewed from multiple directions or projections at the same time, perspective is not respected, and subjects are, therefore, depicted in an unrealistic way, a way in which no human eyes could see them even if they were right in front of us.