Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > General discussions > Photography in general

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 1st February 2011, 08:45 PM
cliveh's Avatar
cliveh cliveh is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Coornwall
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Crone View Post
Clive, of course you could be right, although perhaps some would say, a somewhat cynical view. But perhaps it is in the knowledge that the photographer (artist) has been totally involved in the creation of the print (work of art) using their own fair hands and therefore imbued with their soul/spirit. It is somewhat on the lines of provenance that accompanies antiques, books or any item that has history, significance and importance.
Trevor, you are probably quite correct, as my post was somewhat cynical and I do take your point about provenance. I suppose what annoys me is that most artists also produce a volume of rubbish that they are not happy with, but because it has their provenance it commands a value out of proportion to what they considered their best work.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 1st February 2011, 09:02 PM
Trevor Crone's Avatar
Trevor Crone Trevor Crone is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,609
Default

Clive, 'serious' collectors are a strange 'animal', beyond the understanding of normal folk.
__________________
"To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which will never be seen again" Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Timespresent
Arenaphotographers
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 1st February 2011, 11:46 PM
Graeme's Avatar
Graeme Graeme is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sunderland, UK
Posts: 377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Crone View Post
Clive, of course you could be right, although perhaps some would say, a somewhat cynical view. But perhaps it is in the knowledge that the photographer (artist) has been totally involved in the creation of the print (work of art) using their own fair hands and therefore imbued with their soul/spirit. It is somewhat on the lines of provenance that accompanies antiques, books or any item that has history, significance and importance.
Trevor,
I agree, if I understand what you mean. I think another measure of value is what the picture means to the photographer, and by extension the viewer. If it brings pleasure to the person who took it, it's immensely valuable, if it brings pelasure to others, the value increases. Value is not simply the prvince of monetary, imho - define pleasure? I can't, a pic may bring distress to an individual but still have a measure of value - I personally value the work of Philip Jones-Griffiths in Vietnam, not sure I get pleasure from the torments represented in some, but in terms of value............
Phew, who bought me some strong beer?
__________________
Best Wishes, Graeme


http://graemestarkphotography.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 2nd February 2011, 11:38 AM
Kev M Kev M is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 89
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
Many years ago I attended a lecture by a photographer who claimed that a photograph could only be rated as a good photograph by how much people were prepared to pay for it. I could not understand that viewpoint, but what do FADU members think about that?
I think your lecturer has a point.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 2nd February 2011, 12:09 PM
Dave miller Dave miller is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
Many years ago I attended a lecture by a photographer who claimed that a photograph could only be rated as a good photograph by how much people were prepared to pay for it. I could not understand that viewpoint, but what do FADU members think about that?
Depends whether the photograph is being obtained for it's content or because of who made it. I suppose some people may enjoy it because of who made it rather than because of its content; just as they seem to enjoy wearing a manufacturer's label on the outside of their clothing.

I wonder, was your lecturer going to hang the picture where he could enjoy it, or hide it away in a vault hoping that it will appreciate by more than the rate of inflation, or maybe take a chance by doing both?
__________________
Regards
Dave
www.davids.org.uk
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 2nd February 2011, 05:13 PM
CarlRadford's Avatar
CarlRadford CarlRadford is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Just outside of Glasgow
Posts: 227
Default

Define 'value', 'art' and where 'photography' fits into the first two all before breakfast eh - and after you've done that ask someone else opinion - head aching already

Are bankers more valuable than footballers - discuss
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 3rd February 2011, 03:09 PM
MarkAJ MarkAJ is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Carmarthenshire, Wales
Posts: 19
Default

So if you had a 'good' print and gave it away for nothing....it would'nt be a good print anymore?.....................Answers on no more than two sides of A4 paper
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 3rd February 2011, 03:48 PM
Kev M Kev M is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 89
Default

That's a slightly different question though Mark.

The original statement is that a print is only as good as what someone is willing to pay for it.

If you give it away it doesn't make it worthless or a bad print because the question still stand, what would the receiver pay for it if they weren't given it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 3rd February 2011, 04:24 PM
Trevor Crone's Avatar
Trevor Crone Trevor Crone is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,609
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev M View Post
That's a slightly different question though Mark.

The original statement is that a print is only as good as what someone is willing to pay for it.

If you give it away it doesn't make it worthless or a bad print because the question still stand, what would the receiver pay for it if they weren't given it.
.....and indeed, speaking hypothetically, what would or could the recipient sell it on for?
__________________
"To the attentive eye, each moment of the year has its own beauty, and in the same field, it beholds, every hour, a picture which was never seen before, and which will never be seen again" Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Timespresent
Arenaphotographers
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 3rd February 2011, 04:40 PM
wiesmier's Avatar
wiesmier wiesmier is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Western Isles, nearish Scotland
Posts: 337
Default

Why does everything have to be monetised ?
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greatest Image cliveh Art and aesthetics 86 30th July 2012 06:47 PM
Still image v Moving image cliveh Photography in general 6 18th January 2011 07:24 PM
The Image cliveh Art and aesthetics 14 11th December 2010 03:52 PM
In their own way - image of my grandparents wojtek Members Announcements 12 14th August 2010 10:48 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.