what do you think of this image on amazon?

[enzodm]

Once upon a time art depicted beauty, but no more. I somewhat like the picture but not for my home (but more than the picture of a dog ).
Anyway, on one side: putting a price tag on something is not selling something , you have to find someone willing to pay for. On the other side, if the photographer is known and really in the art market, he will have his own quotation , possibly growing in time and with some luck 450$ spent now may become an investment even if you do not like the picture.

 

[Derrel]

I was truly INSPIRED by the guy selling the blurry crap for $450 a pop. Since having read the OP, I've spent the last hour sifting through my C-list material, convinced that it holds the key to my future retirement!!!! Pretty sure I've gathered up at least six million dollars' worth of out of focus, edgy, kind of abstract-ish-if-you're-really-drunk stuff.

I figure the old saying is true, that, " Art is in the eye of the credit card holder." So...I'm bankin' on that!

 

[DavidVote]

ITT: Photographers ripping on other photographers.

 

[thereyougo!1]

It's all in the eye of the beholder, but it looks ok to me - not my kind of thing though.

had to smile at the BS further down the page:


"The world is bursting with box stores carrying products that you’ll probably see in 9 out of 10 of your neighbor’s homes. You are unique. We know you want more than cheap reproductions and prints that have been mass produced a million times over. Each and every work of art on Zatista is 100% unique, 100% original. Just like you, there is only one. Choose different. Choose the original."

It's one of 20, and there is nothing to say that they won't do another print run.

"There is only one...except this one time when there are twenty..."

My Eyes didn't catch this. Is this someone's review? It doesn't even make sense the whole paragraph.

It's in the area at the bottom of the listing.

 

[DinoThePhotoGuy]

$450 is cheap.

in my coutry these days. Is the full-time monthly income of people. Barely for the rent. Cheap?

I was truly INSPIRED by the guy selling the blurry crap for $450 a pop. Since having read the OP, I've spent the last hour sifting through my C-list material, convinced that it holds the key to my future retirement!!!! Pretty sure I've gathered up at least six million dollars' worth of out of focus, edgy, kind of abstract-ish-if-you're-really-drunk stuff.

I figure the old saying is true, that, " Art is in the eye of the credit card holder." So...I'm bankin' on that!

now I got curious can you give me a link to the blurry crap? and regarding the out of focus......just because something is Out of Focus doesn't make it necessarily a failure or ugly. In fact who knows maybe someone will not even think that what is out of focus is the subject. Maybe they will see something in the picture entirely different and think that that is the subject and may find it just as interesting. And you may not even notice "that thing"

 

[DinoThePhotoGuy]

ITT: Photographers ripping on other photographers.

what's ITT

 

[Buckster]

ITT: Photographers ripping on other photographers.

what's ITT

"In This Thread"

 

[DinoThePhotoGuy]

how are we ripping on them

ITT: Photographers ripping on other photographers.

How are we ripping on them.? We are just Talking about this particular Image.

 

[Buckster]

how are we ripping on them

ITT: Photographers ripping on other photographers.

How are we ripping on them.? We are just Talking about this particular Image.

You can start with the first line, the first sentence in the first paragraph of the first post of this thread, which set it up to BE a thread designed to rip on that photographer and the photo.

 

[enzodm]

$450 is cheap.

in my coutry these days. Is the full-time monthly income of people. Barely for the rent. Cheap?

And yet there is the top 10% of people in you country that is awfully rich and spends way way more for everything they buy, including art .

 

[DinoThePhotoGuy]

isn't it the worst pic ever? and yet he/she wants to sell for $450.00? seriously?
Amazon.com Art Abstract sink Archival Ink-Jet Thurston Howes

darn?? wrong category. How do I move it to off topic or something?

It is a terribly weak composition, and an even worse image. Pretty execrable, to put it politely. Big. Steaming. Pile.

He has worse if you care to look through his images if you click on more from this artist!

I could not find anything worst. except maybe one more black and white like clouds or something which made me dizzy......Other than that maybe they are much better. Some even Awesome.

 

[Nettles]

Some of this photography isn't that bad, assuming all is OK at full size. There’s nothing here I'd pay for, though, even at much lower prices.

It can stick in our craws when we know some of our own shots are similar (and better?) Worse still, we won't fall victim to self-aggrandisement and have the gall to charge lots for nothing special.

Many get away with it and some even believe it about themselves. I'd rather hear it from others over time.

 

[DinoThePhotoGuy]

Some of this photography isn't that bad, assuming all is OK at full size. There’s nothing here I'd pay for, though, even at much lower prices.

It can stick in our craws when we know some of our own shots are similar (and better?) Worse still, we won't fall victim to self-aggrandisement and have the gall to charge lots for nothing special.

Many get away with it and some even believe it about themselves. I'd rather hear it from others over time.

yep. I totally agree

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I'm just waiting for the furious storm that this reply is going to cause..




In defense of the picture:

I like the image, and I think it is well composed. The way the photographer chose to portray the object gives a unique perspective to an otherwise boring and overly photographed subject matter. Not only do I value it as art but I also see it as a well made photograph... Just because the photographer chose to use a centered composition and a blown highlight doesn't make the image bad, its actually what makes it good. The centered composition gives a sense of what type of environment the object is in and the empty space ensures that it does not pull the eye away from the point of interest. The blown highlight, while it can be visually annoying at times (I'm not saying the picture is perfect!!) only adds to this sense of environment, as a viewer you can discern from this spot of light on the ground that you are in a very dark space but that there is light peaking in from outside.

The colors are nice as well.

Now for the artist:

If the photographer named this image he needs to do some reading on abstract art... It's not an abstract. His "Artist statement" itself completely contradicts the image in title and for what it actually is. He states he makes work for purely documentary purposes and avoids creating to give feeling:

My photography is about discovery and learning, they are intended to inform rather than to necessarily convey personal feelings. My images are created through direct experiences with the real world.

The description of abstract art: (via wikipedia)

Abstract art uses a visual language of shape, form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world.

Contrary to his statement about his work, all I get from this image is feeling.. Sure its a documentation of a sink... but isn't that what all photographs are, documentations of things? noone's interested in seeing a documentary about a sink that fell off the wall... what people might be interested in (and what I'm interested in) is the feeling and thought that an image of that sink can create when made well.


I like this guys photograph but I think he doesn't really have a purpose for creating it.. and if he can't explain why he made it why should I care about it enough to pay $450 for it?
No self-respecting gallery or museum curator with knowledge of this photographers statement would buy this image, not because of the image's quality, which I believe is actually very good, but because the images creator is either ignorant of art or unable to explain his own artwork...

If he didn't give that name to it.. I'd consider paying $250-300 for it.

 

[DavidVote]

I'm just waiting for the furious storm that this reply is going to cause..




In defense of the picture:

I like the image, and I think it is well composed. Though it is generic the way the photographer chose to portray the object gives a unique perspective to an otherwise boring and overly photographed subject matter. Not only do I value it as art but I also see it as a well made photograph... Just because the photographer chose to use a centered composition and a blown highlight doesn't make the image bad, its actually what makes it good. The centered composition gives a sense of what type of environment the object is in and the empty space ensures that it does not pull the eye away from the point of interest. The blown highlight, while it can be visually annoying at times (I'm not saying the picture is perfect!!) only adds to this sense of environment, as a viewer you can discern from this spot of light on the ground that you are in a very dark space but that there is light peaking in from outside.

The colors are nice as well.

Now for the artist:

If the photographer named this image he needs to do some reading on abstract art... It's not an abstract. His "Artist statement" itself completely contradicts the image in title and for what it actually is. He states he makes work for purely documentary purposes and avoids creating to give feeling:

My photography is about discovery and learning, they are intended to inform rather than to necessarily convey personal feelings. My images are created through direct experiences with the real world.

The description of abstract art: (via wikipedia)

Abstract art uses a visual language of shape, form, color and line to create a composition which may exist with a degree of independence from visual references in the world.

Contrary to his statement about his work, all I get from this image is feeling.. Sure its a documentation of a sink... but isn't that what all photographs are, documentations of things? noone's interested in seeing a documentary about a sink that fell off the wall... what people might be interested in (and what I'm interested in) is the feeling and thought that an image of that sink can create when made well.


I like this guys photograph but I think he doesn't really have a purpose for creating it.. and if he can't explain why he made it why should I care about it enough to pay $450 for it?
No self-respecting gallery or museum curator with knowledge of this photographers statement would buy this image, not because of the image's quality, which I believe is actually very good, but because the images creator is either ignorant of art or unable to explain his own artwork...

If he didn't give that name to it.. I'd consider paying $250-300 for it.

Just as photoguy, me and a couple other people were saying, it's not a bad image. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it a bad image. Some thoughts were obviously put into capturing it.