Good photography

[Alex_B]

Even better, I will sell all YOUR (all you TPF people) bloopers and we will share the profit .. 20% for you.

But please do not send any interesting images ...

 

[usayit]

Stuff like this happens in all art forms....

I personally think abstract art is the worst but perhaps I'm just too dense or blind to see the art in a black square:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Black_Square.jpg

which was featured on wikipedia's abstract art page. I bet that artist still made money off that one.

 

[Don Simon]

Translation: she likes nature and loves how animals and plants can live anywhere, as well as how they change with the seasons. And, despite being fascinated by how photographs make everything look like it's been frozen in time, she likes to have them printed so they don't look like photographs so you don't confuse them with your Aunt Minnie's snapshots.

I vote for Hertz for Minister of Culture, head of all our national galleries and chief art critic for all major papers. More translations into English would be nice.

 

[shorty6049]

as for the black square, i always wondered what makes someone an artist... why can THEY get paid to create something that didnt really need any talentt to create, and yet i could put a square with a person in it on a canvas and I wouldnt make a penny>

 

[Mike_E]

Psssst, Shorty, it's the hat, ya gotta have the hat!

 

[The_Traveler]

The funniest thing about the Wikipedia page is that one can link to a hi-res image.

 

[Boden]

The thing is that these images are being sold as limited edition prints by the Aperture Foundation, which was founded 50 years ago by Ansel Adams along with some other big names. It's not like these are just random people making high priced prints and selling them on deviant art.

This snapshot of some birds on a bird feeder is being sold for $350 by Aperture.

It's actually part of a 15 image collection of birds at bird feeders. Many of the other pictures in the series are better, but for the most part they are all just birds at bird feeders. I have bird feeders, and birds sit on them. Sure, it's interesting to think about these wild little creatures that live amongst us, but a picture of some birds on a feeder does not do much by itself to convey any sense of wonder.

I guess that I'm willing to try to appreciate that I don't understand the overall context. Consider the black square that somebody linked to. Yeah, a black square is pretty lame, but at the same time, in the right context, positioned in the right place, to be viewed at just the right time, could be considered powerful.

But it still seems to me like you could go through your snapshots, apply some cliche metaphors to the content, and voila: art.

 

[Mike_E]

I don't know how artistic a black square is but if you make your desktop all black and keep the icons off of it, you can see who is sneaking up behind you.., hey, get away from there!...

Hertz got it right I think. And as Rocky The Squirrel used to say, "Now for something really important...".

mike

(how long has it been since you have seen a Bullwinkle reference hmmm?)

 

[craig]

I enjoy this artists work. Check out this link http://www.purdyhicks.com/nm_images_1.htm. I love her "Cosmoses" and "Falling" series. I Like "Sustenance". I think the photos would mean a lot more in person as opposed to the web. I also think they work better as a group.

Love And Bass

 

[Alex_B]

Yeah, a black square is pretty lame, but at the same time, in the right context, positioned in the right place, to be viewed at just the right time, could be considered powerful.

Oh, surely ... but then the piece of artwork is the whole installation .. not the black square. It is like with abstract interior decoration and modern interior architecture. The single peices and shapes are not special, but the way they interact. I have three very cheap coloured IKEA boxes, they by themselves are really nothing special. But the way i placed them on the white shelf really makes that part of my living room

 

[Hertz van Rental]

I have three very cheap coloured IKEA boxes, they by themselves are really nothing special. But the way i placed them on the white shelf really makes that part of my living room

But is it art?




Answer: Only if you get it installed in an Art Gallery :lmao:

 

[Mike_E]

But is it art?




Answer: Only if you get it installed in an Art Gallery :lmao:

Or maybe if someone steals it.

mike

 

[Alex_B]

Of course it is art, it is blue and red on white ... must be art then, right?

Or maybe if someone steals it.

Not worth stealing the boxes, it is just worthless things in them!

 

[ksmattfish]

I guess if it were really so easy to sell crap we'd all be rich!

Wish the photographer/artist well even if you don't understand what they are doing, and get on with your own work. Applying the energy to your own pursuits is much more productive than envy.

Can anybody walk through any art museum or gallery and not see many examples of "Gee, it seems like a monkey/3 year old/catatonic could've made that? The business of the art world isn't about making great and profound things that appeal to everyone. It's about marketing and selling stuff to the right buyers for a lot of money. As long as the purchaser, seller, and creator are all happy, what business is it of mine?

 

[Boden]

Well, it's your business to understand communication. I find it hard to believe that your curiosity isn't peaked when you encounter something like this -- a somewhat boring photograph being recognized and sold by Aperture. What do they find interesting about it? What do the people who enjoy this photograph enough to pay $350 for a print find interesting about it? It's important to try to understand.

Personally I'm not mocking the artist, I'm questioning the artist. In this case I have a hard time believing that anything special is going on here. I would, however, be interested in knowing what is especially appealing about the execution of this particular idea. The idea itself isn't "bad", but the result is 15 pictures of birds at bird feeders, only a few of which are visually interesting. The rest seem to require special insight into the artist's motivation, much of which does sound completely contrived (this coming from somebody who has invented intentions after the fact for his own work). Perhaps I just don't get it, and that's why I want somebody to explain it to me.

So, from the perspective of photographic art, what did some editor at Aperture see in these photographs? What did other art galleries see? What do you see?