| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2003 04:09:58 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Unless a picture shocks, it is nothing. -Marcel Duchamp |
Another hero
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 05:10:47 PM · #27 |
This is very true, John. I score photos that move me higher than those that don't, even if technically imperfect. 'Perfection' as applied to photography is a tricky issue. Certain 'rules' just don't work with some photos. If all of the rules worked all of the time, this just would not be art.
Many of my favorite photographers, Henri Cartier-Bresson among them, would not win many challenges here, I'm afraid. And some of them would. But their photos very often move me.
Take a look at Robert Parke-Harrison, whose photos really take me places! I'm not sure he would do well here.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 05:23:57 PM · #28 |
On the other hand, I teach classes about art in which I outline 'rules' that, over time, have become manifest and that, generally, can help someone judge whether a work of art is 'good' or 'not.'
Another problem is that established artists often feel the call to create new forms and push the boundaries of art. This is when we come up with a new 'ism' in art. The first Impressionist painters' works were panned by critics, but then impressionism became the most popular form of painting at the end of the 19th century--and is still extremely popular today.
'Rules' are good. They give artists guidelines (important word, that), that help to assist in the creation of acceptable art. But as John points out, most great artists are those that bend and stretch the rules--or even reject them. I suppose we don't think of Michelangelo or Rubens as pushing the boundaries--but they were, and their works stand out from the numerous other Renaissance artists as superior.
I suppose, though, that rules must usually be known with some intimacy before they can be mastered?
Message edited by author 2003-12-12 17:24:53.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 05:32:46 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
Take a look at Robert Parke-Harrison, whose photos really take me places! I'm not sure he would do well here. |
Very, very interesting.
It looks so classic, but also so original. I like the atmosphere/mood of those photo's.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 05:38:00 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by dsidwell:
I suppose, though, that rules must usually be known with some intimacy before they can be mastered? |
and I think even more intimately known before they can be usefully rejected. It is hard to reject something you don't even understand other than superficially. Certainly if you want to reject it in an interesting way.
An interesting rejection in photography right now is the growing backlash against digital perfectionism - people liking the imperfect results of film, enjoying grain, exploring more antiquated printing and toning techniques |
|
|
|
12/12/2003 06:01:33 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by dsidwell:
I suppose, though, that rules must usually be known with some intimacy before they can be mastered? |
and I think even more intimately known before they can be usefully rejected. It is hard to reject something you don't even understand other than superficially. Certainly if you want to reject it in an interesting way.
An interesting rejection in photography right now is the growing backlash against digital perfectionism - people liking the imperfect results of film, enjoying grain, exploring more antiquated printing and toning techniques |
Ther has always been a movement against so-called "perfectionism" in photography, when I was working in studios and doing ad shots, I became overloaded from trying to manipulate the image to reflect some non-existent ideal. My personal work was about rejecting that and looking for ways to get away from that and make it look like art and not some slick ad. People (myself included) were pursuing alternative/antique processes and trying to make their images look less perfect and more "handmade". I would imagine that advent of digital imaging has only added to that. I knew a guy who would hold his lens apart from the camera to distort the images. Some people scratched on their negs and prints, splashed chemicals on them randomly, you name it, they would do it to their images.
I don't question that this is still going on, or that digital has accelerated that movement/attitude among soem photographers, but I think has been going on longer than digital techniques have been widely used.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 06:10:47 PM · #32 |
Another photographer whose work I would definitely pay the bucks for, to have a part of international and photographic history is Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin Gorskii.
//www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
One of my favorites of his:
//www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/images/p87-8086.jpg
And I would actually prefer to have the LOC's corrected versions- the colors pop much more than some of the other versions of the same photos I've seen out there. But that's just me.
Andi
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:14:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by JEM:
Will someone here choose a photograph by Henri Cartier Bresson which would survive a DPC contest.
His photographic style holds an immense appeal for me but I do not believe he would get any ribbons here. |
I think this is outside the point. Not many of the classic photographers would do well here. They didn't shoot styles that have mass appeal.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:18:43 PM · #34 |
This is an excellent topic to share on DPC John. I have enjoyed following this. I've often wondered what would happen to the voting and the critiques here if we were to drop several pictures from the masters into one of the open challenges and publish the scores and comments from the voters.
There is a lot to be learned here. |
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:27:50 PM · #35 |
Pepper #30
I'd prefer to see this in colour.
It's just a pepper.
Borrrrring.
I hate table top still lifes I'll be sick if this wins.
What happened to the first 29 ? |
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:29:08 PM · #36 |
Moonrise over Hernandex, New Mexico
Too much black
If you had cropped differently this would be better
You shouldn't have the subject in the center of the picture
DQ request : This seems to have been edited beyond the rules, using masks. |
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:31:26 PM · #37 |
Flatiron Building, Stieglitz
I'd have preferred this if you hadn't gotten that tree in the way
Too centered
Shame about the trees |
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:32:52 PM · #38 |
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:36:37 PM · #39 |
Ha ha ha, exactly Gordon.
I give it a 4
The horizon is bad, why did you crop off the leg? the focus, the shallow depth, the bland subject matter, harsh light on the bottles.
$5000.00 |
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:40:47 PM · #40 |
Name recognition definitely begins to play a role with someone like Cartier-Bresson. If he picked up a camera today and made some idiotic snapshot, it would still command large sums for the prints.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 07:48:25 PM · #41 |
He certainly has a following.
Honestly, individual preference has nothing to do with the worth of a photograph.
Investors will still pay thousands for work they don’t even like.
And there is plenty of the masters works out there I wouldn’t pay a dollar for.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2003 10:01:23 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Gotcha:
He certainly has a following.
Honestly, individual preference has nothing to do with the worth of a photograph.
Investors will still pay thousands for work they don’t even like.
And there is plenty of the masters works out there I wouldn’t pay a dollar for. |
I would love to hear some of your thoughts on how art increases in value and what those rates of increase are like. If people use art as an investment, what do they expect for rates of return? Is it a very high risk investment?
|
|
|
|
12/13/2003 03:10:43 AM · #43 |
Buying art is a very subjective decision. We fall in love with it or we don't. Sometimes we love it so much, we don't care what it costs. Before you purchase any work of art, however, you should ask yourself some specific questions. Is this what I want in my home or office? Do I want to see it day after day for years to come? Where will I hang it? Is it really worth the asking price to me?
The first rule of thumb is to buy art that you love. Typically art does not "grow" on you. It should reflect the right personality too. But just because you love it, that doesn't mean that the price is right. Some basic research into the artist's background and stature are important aspects to consider.
The cost of a work of art is typically related to the experience of the artist and the popularity of other works in the marketplace. Newcomers cannot charge as much as those who have worked in their field for many years and have built a reputation. Artists, whose work has been included in museum collections, publications and so forth, who have orchestrated one-person shows, have demonstrated that there is respect within the art world for their work. They can command higher prices. The value of their work is perceived and subjective. The price, however, is set and usually firm.
An artist's education is also a factor. However, the academic record is more reflective of the artist's technical background and skills, not the artist's natural talent. Do not let an artist's educational record be a huge determining factor. Many artists with incredible talent have never had formal art education. Some have developed their skills as apprentices or within an art community, yet their work is outstanding and highly respected.
An artist's credibility is more reflected in the number of shows and the type of shows that have exhibited the work. New artists try to get into local and regional galleries. Emerging and established artists tend to mount one-person shows. This is an excellent opportunity for them to obtain exposure and judge the response to their work.
But even all of this should be evaluated with the value a particular artist's work has for you and your company. So for this reason, let your passion for the work start the process. Love it immediately, or keep looking. While placement of original art is not as critical in the business environment as it would be in a home, it does have an aesthetic and emotional impact on the business, the facility and all visitors and employees.
Ask yourself these questions: How long as the artist been exhibiting? Have the exhibitions been local, regional, national or international? Are the sites of the exhibition notable and well known? How many awards, if any, has the artist received?
Another benchmark of value is the number of reviews in journals, magazines and newspapers the artist has received. A strong endorsement by an art critic can have a significant impact on an artist's career because critics act as interpreters, evaluating the work itself for quality, but also placing it in the context of history and genre.
If you're interested in acquiring the works of an emerging artist, it's affirming to learn that other people share your passion. For this reason, it's helpful to learn which private, public and corporate collections include works by that artist. Artists usually want to know who owns their work because if a work is owned by a museum, this adds value. The ownership of works by an artist will be influenced also by whether they are part of a collector's works or are already owned by corporations.
Artists reflect the world around them as well as their personal life and feelings. They produce work in particular techniques and themes of influence, and sometimes their techniques and themes change dramatically. Whenever you speak with artists or gallery curators or consultants, ask them to comment on the whole body of work by an artist. You should know if an artist has recently changed a particular theme or technique. How prolific is the artist? Once you know an artist's depth of experience, you will be better able to judge the value you are willing to place on the work.
In short, an artists work is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If you do a little research, it is extremely rare to have an artists work become worth less over time.
|
|
|
|
12/13/2003 04:28:41 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Gotcha:
In short, an artists work is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If you do a little research, it is extremely rare to have an artists work become worth less over time. |
That is interesting :) I guess it's like anything else... experience pays off. I think the most amazing thing about Bresson is the fact that he was more interested in painting than photography, yet his photos are worth big money.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/09/2025 08:58:37 AM EDT.
