Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Remember, art and money do not necessarily have any relationship with one
another. Just because something sells is irrelevant (though very nice for
the seller). Remember all those artists who never sold a thing and whose
work was later discovered to be revolutionary in terms of how it expanded
our vision of the world, whatever the medium (painting, photographs, music,
dance, whatever the medium).
People who sell well are often very good marketers. That's an art in and of
itself. Might ought to be considered an integral part of the art of the work
itself. Self-promotion is an essential skill, no matter how bad your work
is. ;-)
Kit
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Joseph
Codispoti
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:15 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] #$@%$^ art photographers
Kyle,
As you know, art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. As a
left-brained photographer I loath so called "art photography" that to me
seems more like excuses for failed photographs.
Even the cover you like ("http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/" ) does
nothing for me. Maybe it would if it adorned the cover of a chiropractic
magazine.
Even your "Fallen" series do nothing for me but then it is only my
perception. Others may find value in them and that in itself has value.
Many years ago a British artist laid a sheet of plywood in the center of a
public square, threw a few buckets of paint on it and then drove over it
with his MG to leave tire imprints all over it.
I consider that a stunt more than art but, then, it is hard to argue when he
sold it for $12,000 on the spot.
Joe
From: "Kyle Cassidy" <KCassidy@asc.upenn.edu>
> Well ... I'm nothing if not an art photographer (lord knows I'm not any
> _other_ kind of photographer), and I disagree with these sweeping
> generalizations of art photography. Certianly there's a lot of crap out
> there. Recently I saw some large cibacrhomes of single colors (why paint
> rothcoe when you can photograph it), and I think cindy sherman's doll
photos
> are beyond garbage, but in art galleries you find sally mann and anna
> gaskill and any other number of very talented people. I like the photo on
> the cover of this months art in america
> "http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/" and I think Erwin Wurm is funny.
Now.
> What "art photography" might be interpreted as in your local art gallery,
> might vary. In some places, thomas kinkade gets his stuff hung on walls.
Go
> figure that one out and explain it to me.
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html