Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] New York Times anonymous fine art photography Now Mark's screw up
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sat Jul 3 21:33:00 2004

On 7/3/04 9:43 AM, "Nathan Wajsman" <n.wajsman@chello.nl> typed:

> I believe Mark's objection to the NY Noir was that the photographers
> were not identified. Here they are. So I guess your only complaint is
> that the prices are low. But what is wrong with that? To me, this is
> like buying an Ansel Adams calendar for $25.
> 
> Nathan
> 

A calendar is a calendar.

And is not a colander.

One is not in the "art" business when one sells calendars. Or colanders.
The Witkin Gallery in New York is not going to be shaking in it's shoes
because someone is helping people figure out which day it is.
http://www.photography-guide.com/l_priv_frame.html

A silver gelatin print (A photograph) was not a pigment ink image.  ... With
a lot of numbers on it in rows.
Until recently.
But without the numbers.

Photography
It's not a numbers racket.




Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/




Replies: Reply from s.jessurun95 at chello.nl (animal) ([Leica] New York Times anonymous fine art photography NowMark's screw up)
In reply to: Message from n.wajsman at chello.nl (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] New York Times anonymous fine art photography Now Mark's screw up)