RE: [Leica] #$@%$^ art photographers

[Daniel Ridings <daniel.ridings@muspro.uio.no>]

I've often thought of this Kit ... selling not having to do with quality.

But if we look back at the classics ... take Greek theatre for example,
the most famous plays that have survived are the ones that the public
loved (Euripides had a love/hate relationship with the public, but we
moderns appreciate him).

Homer ... immensely popular, big seller, paperback, in his day. It seems
that time preserves the works that were very popular. The ones we
remember, van Gogh for example, are exceptions.

It seems that in the history of art, the most prestigious works were
popular even to the masses. Maybe that's art ... being able to touch so
many different kind of people?

I've often thought of that ... but then I have a short attention span and
just go on with my life :)

Daniel

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Kit McChesney wrote:

> 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
>
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html