I don't get it
Dec 12, 2014 19:03:54 #
Dec 12, 2014 23:45:45 #
TheDman wrote:
The more I read about this guy the more it becomes... (show quote)
I do feel the press release seems to infer that Bella Luna is a single capture, however I remember reading some discussions about it a few years ago, and Lik not only indicated that it was a composite, but also indicated the different exposures used. While that omission is annoying to we photographers, it is apparently inconsequential to many (maybe most) buyers of high priced art (given he sold an edition of 950 prints at 10K a pop).
Dec 13, 2014 05:29:37 #
johnske wrote:
A few years ago I saw a colour photo of Antelope C... (show quote)
Its bloody madness thats what it is. Some idiot really paid this much for a photo? He or she has got more money than brain cells. been too long on the plonk I think! I don't get it either. I mean he's hardly gonna get any return on that. I wouldn't have paid $6.50 for it.
Dec 13, 2014 06:17:06 #
I am a math science left brained person and I don't get the Art end of things sometimes. I can appreciate good Art when I see it but sometimes I have to scratch my head. For example, I recently went to an Art Museum and they had a huge canvas on a wall painted completely white with a ping pong ball sized red dot in it. That was it!!!! People were raving about this piece of "Art"!! I would really love to hear what some of the masters would say about it!! Ultimately, the artist who did this had a name for himself so he can do anything he likes and people will pay. Maybe that is what is going on with this photographer.
Dec 13, 2014 07:03:26 #
Hi John. My take on this is there is a lot of rich stupid folks out there that want to be looked at for having the best of everything. But the problem is....they don't have a clue!!! :)
Erv
Erv
Dec 13, 2014 07:25:02 #
I totally agree with you! If you like a photo that much, 6.5 mil worth, then commission some one to shoot it fore you and save 6.40 mil.
Dec 13, 2014 07:37:51 #
ole sarg
Loc: south florida
You don't get that kind of money being a fool!
Shellback wrote:
A fool and his money are soon parted ;)
Dec 13, 2014 07:43:39 #
Dec 13, 2014 07:48:25 #
I think we are seeing two things here:
1. A continuation of the debate "Can photography be art?"
2. The outrageous transfer of wealth from the working and middle classes to the very wealthy.
In my opinion I say "Yes" to the first. The plastic arts (as distinguished from the audio, e.g., music and verbal, e.g., literature) can be performed with many different media: oil paints and canvas, hammer and chisel and stone, water color and paper, camera and post processing. Ansel Adams, of course, comes immediately to mind. The Guardian article mentioned early on speaks of the art of the Hudson River School. They had a vision of the landscape and manipulated reality to fit that vision. I believe that a photographer with a good eye and a vision that can be developed in the lab (as did Adams) or in post processing can do the same. Whether Lik's contrived shot qualifies is the question. Sometime look up Adam's description of how he took Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.
The "fact" (?) that someone paid $6.5 million for it brings up the second concern: Too much -- and expanding -- amounts of money in the hands of the very few. As I view our political process I find the real power rests in the hands of the huge corporations and very wealthy. Most of the actions of government today reflect this reality. For example, who got government money after the 2008 crash? Not those who lost jobs and homes; it was the large financial corporations. The latest move is to ensure that large financial institutions can make a lot of risky money and if they fail, the government will step in and bail them out. An attempt to help people of modest means get health care is ferociously and continuously attacked and the person most responsible for implementing that which originated in a conservative think tank and was implemented in one state by a member of a different party is the victim of constant vilification. Those who benefit from the present economic state of affairs have more money than they know what do do with it and so the outrageous prices for -- junk?
1. A continuation of the debate "Can photography be art?"
2. The outrageous transfer of wealth from the working and middle classes to the very wealthy.
In my opinion I say "Yes" to the first. The plastic arts (as distinguished from the audio, e.g., music and verbal, e.g., literature) can be performed with many different media: oil paints and canvas, hammer and chisel and stone, water color and paper, camera and post processing. Ansel Adams, of course, comes immediately to mind. The Guardian article mentioned early on speaks of the art of the Hudson River School. They had a vision of the landscape and manipulated reality to fit that vision. I believe that a photographer with a good eye and a vision that can be developed in the lab (as did Adams) or in post processing can do the same. Whether Lik's contrived shot qualifies is the question. Sometime look up Adam's description of how he took Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.
The "fact" (?) that someone paid $6.5 million for it brings up the second concern: Too much -- and expanding -- amounts of money in the hands of the very few. As I view our political process I find the real power rests in the hands of the huge corporations and very wealthy. Most of the actions of government today reflect this reality. For example, who got government money after the 2008 crash? Not those who lost jobs and homes; it was the large financial corporations. The latest move is to ensure that large financial institutions can make a lot of risky money and if they fail, the government will step in and bail them out. An attempt to help people of modest means get health care is ferociously and continuously attacked and the person most responsible for implementing that which originated in a conservative think tank and was implemented in one state by a member of a different party is the victim of constant vilification. Those who benefit from the present economic state of affairs have more money than they know what do do with it and so the outrageous prices for -- junk?
Dec 13, 2014 08:10:11 #
Dec 13, 2014 08:12:44 #
coyotecall
Loc: New Mexico
Well, some people have more dollars than sense.
johnske wrote:
A few years ago I saw a colour photo of Antelope C... (show quote)
Dec 13, 2014 08:26:16 #
johnske wrote:
A few years ago I saw a colour photo of Antelope C... (show quote)
"very unique shot" Are a rarity in landscape or natural geology photography. Ansel Adams' "Moon Rise Over Hernandez" is unique art. Have you seen how many "nice" shots there are of say Yosemite Valley? Curtis, Vroman, Adams, and your great, great, great, grand daughter.
I read the second article. I do not in the least agree with the author's general view of Black & White Photography, digital or otherwise. I often see shots as B&W with the intent of converting them PP and never as color. And I am not alone. In the film days I shot way more serious B&W film than color. And still do today as I don't really like B&W ink prints and want only silver prints (somehow).
Dec 13, 2014 08:31:46 #
There really isn't anything to get. It's a result of fashion, a sort of insanity and someone having far far too much money. There is no rationale for any of these.
In 1975 Tom Wolfe wrote a little book titled "The Painted Word". It comes as close to explaining this sort of weirdness as anything I've seen.
In 1975 Tom Wolfe wrote a little book titled "The Painted Word". It comes as close to explaining this sort of weirdness as anything I've seen.
Dec 13, 2014 08:51:28 #
[quote=johnske]A few years ago I saw a colour photo of Antelope Canyon by Peter Lik.
...he's now re-processed the original colour photo, done a slight crop and applied a black and white conversion and sold it for $6.5 million! ... I know he is a master of self promotion, but I just don't get it - why would ANYone pay that much?
This is a classic example of the well-worn idiom, "There's no accounting for taste." Lik's artwork is no longer a photograph which, by it's very definition, is a record of an image. What we see in Lik's photograph is a distortion of an
image which we might be generous enough to call "creative photography."
...he's now re-processed the original colour photo, done a slight crop and applied a black and white conversion and sold it for $6.5 million! ... I know he is a master of self promotion, but I just don't get it - why would ANYone pay that much?
This is a classic example of the well-worn idiom, "There's no accounting for taste." Lik's artwork is no longer a photograph which, by it's very definition, is a record of an image. What we see in Lik's photograph is a distortion of an
image which we might be generous enough to call "creative photography."
Dec 13, 2014 08:56:37 #
Racmanaz wrote:
I think it's great that he made this much money on his photo!! cudos to Peter Lik, I am going to praise him instead of criticizing his work and his accomplishment....I just don't understand all the bitterness with this. <shrugs>
I can understand it, to me it's not worth that kind of money. However most are jealous that he got that kind of money for that pic....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.