Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II  (Read 65525 times)
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2011, 02:08:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Other than being an image from an accomplished photographer.. I still don't see anything in that image.  It's an image my wife would delete from her PNS.  And before someone says "then why didn't she take it?"  I think she did.  I like hers better.
To appreciate a Gursky or say a Gregory Crewsdon print you have to see them in the flesh, a 800x600px online version is not the same thing at all. In fact many of my own images loose their impact when reduced for web as they lose their texture. I've seen a Gursky similar to the record breaking shot and it stuck in my mind more than many other photos I've seen in exhibitions.

Whether it is worth the money paid is another argument again and just because a work of art is not to your taste does not disqualify it from being art or being good. I cannot stand Dali's work [with a few exceptions], yet I would never be arrogant enough to say it is rubbish/not art.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2011, 05:48:24 PM »
ReplyReply

To appreciate a Gursky or say a Gregory Crewsdon print you have to see them in the flesh, a 800x600px online version is not the same thing at all. In fact many of my own images loose their impact when reduced for web as they lose their texture. I've seen a Gursky similar to the record breaking shot and it stuck in my mind more than many other photos I've seen in exhibitions.

Whether it is worth the money paid is another argument again and just because a work of art is not to your taste does not disqualify it from being art or being good. I cannot stand Dali's work [with a few exceptions], yet I would never be arrogant enough to say it is rubbish/not art.

a.  I accept this.  Images, properly composed, are visualized at a certain viewing size for maximum effect.  And I accept this guy must create some great images.  This just isn't one of them at any size. 

b.   My belief is that anything in this world, even a deleted image from a PNS, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.  I might think someone is spending their money unwisely, but that would be merely a personal observation and not a reflection on the art itself.  Would I have paid 4.3 million (assuming I could afford to) for this image?  Not on your life.  I wouldn't have paid anything, other than to pay someone to carry it to the rubbish bin. 

c.  So you've never offered an honest opinion in reference to "art?"  Or are you saying you've never seen a piece of rubbish masquerading as art?   IMO.. art doesn't exist without critics.  Critics critique and by doing so set the relative value (not necessarily monetary) of art.  It devalues art in general when we, for whatever reason, fail to give that honest critique we become responsible for when we endeavor to become a member of the community.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
dchew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 542



WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2011, 06:40:40 PM »
ReplyReply

IMO.. art doesn't exist without critics.  

Hmm. I don't agree with that.  I think Art is defined by the creator's intent.  If it was created as a piece of art, then that's what it is. Regardless of how good or bad, accepted or critiqued, expensive or cheap or free.

Dave
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 06:42:17 PM by dchew » Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2011, 07:15:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm. I don't agree with that.  I think Art is defined by the creator's intent.  If it was created as a piece of art, then that's what it is. Regardless of how good or bad, accepted or critiqued, expensive or cheap or free.

Dave
What "defines art" was not questioned.  Or defined.  We've got tons of threads in this forum alone seeking to define what constitutes art.  I'm not getting into that.

What I said was that "art cannot exist without critics."  (hint: This is a "if a tree falls in the forest" type of comment)  Or in other words.. every person whose senses (only the first five) falls upon that which is created.. judges it.  They do this without thought, instinctively as we'd admire a beautiful woman or be repulsed by a hideous mutant, or perhaps with intent, but we do judge.

So why such negative (and all too often elitist) reactions to those who provide an honest negative opinion/reaction to this image?  And why is it from those who claim to be educated in the arts?  Frankly I've been disappointed by those who claim to be so educated.  To a person they appear unable to respond without direct or indirect insults towards those who see the image differently.  And their only offered reasoning centers around "you don't understand because you're not educated.."  And they say this having no idea what the other persons educational background might be.  They just make the leap in reasoning that if someone doesn't see things the way they do.. then they can't possibly be educated.  Words speak loudly. 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2332


« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2011, 09:05:30 PM »
ReplyReply

So why such negative (and all too often elitist) reactions to those who provide an honest negative opinion/reaction to this image?

Precisely which comments, in this discussion of Gursky's photo, do you claim are the "negative (and all too often elitist) reactions"?

Please quote the exact words, so I don't have to guess what you mean.
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2011, 09:40:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Precisely which comments, in this discussion of Gursky's photo, do you claim are the "negative (and all too often elitist) reactions"?

Please quote the exact words, so I don't have to guess what you mean.


a.  There was another thread I haven't looked at since last week where the insults were very direct and severe.  I'm sure you can find it. 

b.  I promise, you won't be left guessing.




Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5002



WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2011, 10:48:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve et al.,

Why don't we turn the table for a moment? If that "crappy" image is not worthy of millions, which one, in your opinion, is? Which one of contemporary landscape photos you think raises the bar and sets the standard of being "true" art, worthy of both adoration of millions of the masses and millions of dollars?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #27 on: November 21, 2011, 02:52:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Slobodan, the answer is short and simple: none.

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1610



WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2011, 02:53:57 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=112574&handle=li
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2011, 08:22:27 AM »
ReplyReply





Art or artifice?

Rob C
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2332


« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2011, 10:30:35 AM »
ReplyReply

There was another thread I haven't looked at since last week where the insults were very direct and severe.

I searched out and read through the "Record for any photo sold at auction set in NYC" comments.

As far as I can tell, there's very little difference between what you describe as "honest negative opinion" and what you describe as "direct or indirect insults".

The main difference seems to be that when you speak about others you think it's "honest negative opinion" but when others speak about you then you think it's "direct or indirect insults".
Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2332


« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2011, 11:18:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Sounds more like the personal thoughts of an insane person. It gets really old listening to people tell me a painting of a fresh pile of dog shite or Jesus wearing a Hello Kitty skirt is art.

It gets just as old listening to people tell me that "it gets really old listening to people tell me a painting of a fresh pile of dog shite or Jesus wearing a Hello Kitty skirt is art".

So please try to come up with something more thoughtful instead.

Maybe the artist is telling you that they think contemporary art is dog poop, or that in a Godless society nothing is sacred and worth painting so they might as well paint dog poop, or ...


But I find it very sheep like when others claim their "art studdys" program enabled them to see art others can't see like they're in some secret club with one of a kind decoder rings.

That does nothing to help me understand whether others who claim to see the art are making a valid point and you're missing the point; or whether there's no point to get. (Seems like it's all about you feeling excluded.)


Other than being an image from an accomplished photographer. I still don't see anything in that image.  It's an image my wife would delete from her PNS.  And before someone says "then why didn't she take it?"  I think she did.  I like hers better.

Well, if your wife, or you, or I, had taken that image and then didn't see anything in the photo we'd made, and so we deleted the photo - a perfectly reasonable conclusion would be that we all failed to see that photo could be turned into a work of art, so we didn't even try to persuade The Art World that they should pay attention to what we were showing them.


In a different LuLa discussion, someone said "Actually, I can paint cubist pictures like Picasso. I can even dribble paint like Jackson Pollack." - and the important word there is like, because being able to paint "like Picasso" says a lot about technique but not so much about creativity or originality.

Now to have painted cubist pictures before Picasso or Braque or ... !
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 12:33:13 PM by Isaac » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2011, 09:12:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve et al.,

Why don't we turn the table for a moment? If that "crappy" image is not worthy of millions, which one, in your opinion, is? Which one of contemporary landscape photos you think raises the bar and sets the standard of being "true" art, worthy of both adoration of millions of the masses and millions of dollars?

That's an excellent question.. though when I speak of what an image is worth I'm thinking of 'to me' and not on the general market. And like I said, I didn't want to get into the question on what's art or not as it seems more a personal interpretation than one we'll all agree with.   I really have little knowledge on the market value of contemporary photos.  Worth millions?  Probably none, but I remain open.  There are probably plenty of "utility" purpose photographs people would pay millions for, and they could be made artistic but I don't think that's what you're asking for. 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2011, 09:17:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I searched out and read through the "Record for any photo sold at auction set in NYC" comments.

As far as I can tell, there's very little difference between what you describe as "honest negative opinion" and what you describe as "direct or indirect insults".

The main difference seems to be that when you speak about others you think it's "honest negative opinion" but when others speak about you then you think it's "direct or indirect insults".
Isaac.. you can do better than that.  Please be reasonable.  You don't immediately see that the main difference is that when discussing the image in question and giving opinions.. we were critiquing a third party who put an image out there to be critiqued.  And the direct and indirect insults were aimed personally at those who made them and were not referenced towards an image.  Or in more simple terms everyone, positive and negative opinions, were directed at an image.  The insults were directed at each other.

With such discussions intellectual honesty is key.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1441



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2011, 09:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

It gets just as old listening
Let's elevate this discussion a bit shall we?
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2332


« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2011, 01:25:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Isaac.. you can do better than that.  Please be reasonable.

I will do better - I'll waste no more time feeding oxygen to your masquerades.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 02:28:04 PM by Isaac » Logged
Mike D. B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2011, 05:04:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Christies probably could sell elephant poop to these people if it called it "fine art." Oh, wait, didn't a world-famous museum present elephant poop as fine art not long ago?

The elephant poop might be a worthwhile project!  I recall in the 70s, where a friend who worked for an insurance company had to insure an artist's exhibition for an unbelievable amount.  The exhibit was cans of "Artist's Sh...".  So nothing seems impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2011, 10:58:50 AM »
ReplyReply

The elephant poop might be a worthwhile project!  I recall in the 70s, where a friend who worked for an insurance company had to insure an artist's exhibition for an unbelievable amount.  The exhibit was cans of "Artist's Sh...".  So nothing seems impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit



I seem to remember seeing photographs of the tins in which the stuff was being kept; also remember seeing a tv segment where an 'artist' did, indeed, use elephant shit to make his pictures. But then, if it goes like cowdung, it can always be used - in extremis - to create a little warmth in the grate. Not a bad investment in these days of rising fossil fuel prices.

Rob C
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5002



WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2011, 11:42:05 AM »
ReplyReply

You guys seem to be pooh-poohing the poop? Especially the elephant one. A poopy idea, at best. It is a recyclable and valuable product, which can be used for (ultimately) artistic purposes, like paper.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2011, 01:45:51 PM »
ReplyReply

You guys seem to be pooh-poohing the poop? Especially the elephant one. A poopy idea, at best. It is a recyclable and valuable product, which can be used for (ultimately) artistic purposes, like paper.



Slobodan, I never cease to be amazed by the diversity of the places where you have planted your feet!

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad