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

jetcode wrote in post #16867314
Are concepts only valid if they come from you? It's called narcissism.

The Golden Ratio doesn't come from me. It's a natural phenomenon seen in plants, animals and natural formations everywhere.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16867133
A house is worth something. A better-constructed or better-outfitted house is worth more, other things (e.g. location) being equal. An idea for a house is worth nothing; a poorly-constructed house with a 'concept' or 'statement' behind it is worth no more than the land it was built on.

Get me Frank Gehry and a couple hundred tonnes of steel and I can debunk this theory ... and likely make you very annoyed in the process.

Owain Shaw wrote in post #16867500
Get me Frank Gehry and a couple hundred tonnes of steel and I can debunk this theory ... and likely make you very annoyed in the process.

Take away the name Frank Gehry, keeping just the design, and it just ends up being a weird-looking and very ugly house.

Also, a house constructed from a few hundred tonnes of stainless steel can in no way be compared to a normal house, be it hovel or mansion - in trying to place a value on it, there's very little to compare it to!

It's a nice photo, overpriced, but very nice.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16867272
The Golden Mean is also a mathematical function, which is, therefore, universal.

Yes, it's universal. That's why I brought it up. In addition to working as a counterexample to one of your generalizations (see next paragraph), it's an item in the visual language that airfrogusmc is talking about. People like to look at compositions that embody this ratio. Its universality shows that what counts as good in art doesn't, or doesn't entirely and never needn't, result from brainwashing by one's society or from blindly following the elite in-crowd.

Now that you acknowledge that the G.M. is universal, do you have anything to say about your earlier comment "The only things that transcend cultures are things that look the same everywhere - grass is green, sky is (usually) blue, snow is white"?

The source is absolutely inherent in the colors and their wavelengths! The human visual system is part of physical reality. The wavelengths are part of physical reality. The subjective appeal of complementary colors depends on their relative places in the visible spectrum. Someone who sees a different spectrum will have an abnormal experience of colors that are complementary to the rest of us.

I thought I made this point clearly enough initially and no more explanation would be necessary. Does someone else out there understand what I'm trying to say? Is any part of the obstacle to communication at my end?

I presume you've heard of the placebo effect. I presume you also know what psychogenic complaints are.

Well, then, take back your assertion that it doesn't happen! That's the reasonable and honorable thing to do. You never, ever concede a point, do you?

A collector with an interest in art history or photographic history or just history history might pay a high price for an object of historical significance without considering it better than another object. (Neat handwriting on nice paper doesn't make an autograph expensive, or calligraphers' signatures would fetch the highest prices.) Those criteria might fall into your category of "sentimental." So a high price in such cases doesn't offend you, but a high price when craftsmanship is lacking does. Rhein II is a landscape. Is it lacking in craftsmanship? Do you think it's a bad image, and if so, why?

Shadowblade wrote in post #16867510
Take away the name Frank Gehry, keeping just the design, and it just ends up being a weird-looking and very ugly house.

Also, a house constructed from a few hundred tonnes of stainless steel can in no way be compared to a normal house, be it hovel or mansion - in trying to place a value on it, there's very little to compare it to!

Your original post mentioned nothing about a normal house, nor do I believe that was what you meant at that time with the words "a poorly-constructed house with a 'concept' or 'statement' behind it" either - as such a house doesn't sound like a normal house to me. And I think it could very easily be compared to a large mansion if both are intended for living, have approximately the same floor space and number of rooms, why can it not be considered comparable?

Someone who appreciates Gehry's design could just as easily appreciate a similar design by another and see this as a desireable property.

OhLook wrote in post #16867604
Does someone else out there understand what I'm trying to say? Is any part of the obstacle to communication at my end?

Yes, I understood it quite easily. And no, I don't think so. Respectively.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16867099
Theres all kinds of creative people out here communicating visually and some of it is objective. We are making really good livings using these tools and many of us are having exhibits and selling work and having really cool conversations about all of these things that you do not believe exsist. Oh by the way the world is not flat either....

What you call objective when discussing art is most probably not. It's trained, subjective, reactions.

I have on a number of occasions opened a web forum thread and found an initial post in only capitals. And found myself quickly moving my head back in reaction to the perceived shouting. All a result of a long cultivation of the concept that upper-case text represents shouting.

That same thing is involved in most other sensory inputs I receive. When I listen to music. When I look at sculptures. When I look at photos.

It's just subjective responses based on a regularly repeated mantra of what should be expected.

And as Shadowblade has already noted - these trained reactions/views are formed by our culture, and aren't generally translatable to other cultures. Spending time with another culture can train you to take on their perceptions. But that doesn't mean that paintings, sculptures, music etc from that culture becomes better. It just means that you can learn to form a different perspective.

But a big problem here is that humans are flock animals. And sometimes, that can lead to very interesting situations where a group of people can form completely different rule-sets that are violently different from the more established values. And being flock animals, lots of people can come to believe that what they are seeing/hearing must be great based on some random parameter - like a price tag.

It is well known, that there aren't really any limitations to how far it is possible to adjust values and perception. So we can learn that violence is normal and accepted. That peeing publicly represents an art installation. That a jar of the "artists" blood is magnificent and worthy of hours of creative debate.

But one question here is - how far outside of our own values and perspectives is it meaningful to go just to try to embrace something that you initially do not like?`Is the "great" art really great and meaningful to "learn to like"? Or is it way better to admire the art that actually matches our existing perceptive rule-set?

I just don't believe in the "training to like" world view. I see a much more fruitful route in searching for things I like instead. Because the world just has an infinite amount of options available. No reason to "learn to like" what is presented in one museum when I can just visit another museum where I don't need to rewire myself to like the art.

Sorry, but this type of arrogant irony just falls flat. It's just a "let's ignore you by trying to pretend you are a fool." That's really not a good way to handle a situation where someone else has a different view than you.

Just that there are no objective rules for what is great. It's just cultural conventions, and hence subjective.

Watch out again. Once more you hit with the hammer but you end up with your own thumb in the line of fire, by going the "ridicule" route.

"How do you make your work different from anybody elses?" The problem here is that the answer is cultural. Different audiences will respond differently to what you frame.

So it's always important to know your audience. But in a very subjective way, because the target audience is programmed according to their cultural values - and that isn't objective. Which means that a great photo intended to accompany an article text requires a specific rule set because the target audience will evaluate the photo based on previous conventions for that specific context. While photos for a fine arts gallery exhibit will need to play on completely different conventions. Even more so depending on where in the world - or when in time - that exhibit is.

OhLook wrote in post #16867235
The Golden Mean hasn't changed in thousands of years, while cultures have.

Are you talking about the philosophical mean between two extremes?

Or the golden section?

jetcode wrote in post #16867285
The "golden mean" is an interpretation of natural phenomenon. Translating patterns in nature into a mathematical function is a human construct. It is only universal to humanity if indeed that is the case. Nature does not require mathematics.

But that mathematical function just can not change with culture just as pi can't change value by any human conventions.

There can only exist one single numeric value that specific property. The only thing that has changed with time, is that the constant can now be described with an almost infinite number of decimals while it could just be roughly approximated when the concept was originally discovered.

Lots of people have found beauty in the golden ratio just because of how elegantly it describes a number of geometric constructs. In this case we are talking about something objective - culture doesn't matter to the value of the golden ratio. Whatever culture you come from, there will still be a number of these unexpected geometries that just happens to follow this specific magic number.

jetcode wrote in post #16867314
Are concepts only valid if they come from you? It's called narcissism.

You do realize the difference between what can be measured, and what can't?

pwm2 wrote in post #16867694
But that mathematical function just can not change with culture just as pi can't change value by any human conventions.

There can only exist one single numeric value that specific property. The only thing that has changed with time, is that the constant can now be described with an almost infinite number of decimals while it could just be roughly approximated when the concept was originally discovered.

Lots of people have found beauty in the golden ratio just because of how elegantly it describes a number of geometric constructs. In this case we are talking about something objective - culture doesn't matter to the value of the golden ratio. Whatever culture you come from, there will still be a number of these unexpected geometries that just happens to follow this specific magic number.

I fully appreciate the golden mean. Trust me. I do. My original point was that nature precedes human construct which is the symbology used to describe nature such as mathematics, language, etc.

jetcode wrote in post #16867736
I fully appreciate the golden mean. Trust me. I do. My original point was that nature precedes human construct which is the symbology used to describe nature such as mathematics, language, etc.

The part about the golden ratio not changing over time was in response to OhLook who made a comment that it had kept its value over thousands of years despite cultural changes.

If there weren't objective ways to help us understand what is or isn't which those objective things (visual elements like line, shape color, etc and how they all work together or not) to help communicate a visual idea then everything would be art and we know that just is not true. Those are not the only things that determine what is or isn't.

You see people here ever day try to use objective ways to determine and judge what they determine what is or isn't. Things like RoTs. Understanding and becoming fluent in visual terms will not only help in determining what is or isn;t valid beyond what is liked or disliked.

I'll post his again and these things are being studied in every accredited college and university in the world.
http://char.txa.cornel​l.edu/language/introla​n.htm

Eric Kim, love him, hate him whatever in these instances he is right and what the link I posted is being learned buy hundreds and hundreds of art and photography students everyday world wide.
All of this like the link I posted earlier re way over simplified but you get the drift.
http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …n-lesson-4-leading-lines/

http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …ition-lesson-1-triangles/

http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …esson-2-figure-to-ground/

http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …ition-lesson-3-diagonals/

Understanding how to use these visual tools in what combination which will change from situation to situation and piece to piece frees you from pre conceived rules and can be used to help communicate ideas visually. The greats were all fluent. It takes years to master because what works in A fails miserably in B.

A great photographer once told me that either everything in the photographs is helping support the photograph and if those elements are not supporting the image then they are hurting it. Becoming fluent in the language we re all trying to speak only makes the communication on both sides easier.

Now you can believe this or not but I can tell you every exhibit I have had the curator and I have had conversations that were about how well these kinds of things were working or not in my images. Almost every art director and I have these types of conversations on every commercial shoot.

And it's not training to LIKE its learning to UNDERSTAND. Big, big difference. There are a lot of things I understand and still do not like.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16867889
It takes years to master because what works in A fails miserably in B.

And the reason is because it's subjective, not objective.

So you can't measure and know. You need to learn the subjective ways of your audience. Want to sell to multiple audiences - then multiple subjective customs to learn.

Repetition.

You are still discussing something in relation to the cultural customs of your intended audience.

But is there a reason to want to learn more about the creator or the art object if you don't like it? After all, there isn't time enough to learn everything so someone interested in studying must be very selective.