Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I probably don't agree that this is BS. In art it does depend a great deal on who "got there first" and who truly keeps developing the concept and style above and beyond what we've seen before. In terms of National Parks and grand landscape photography AA certainly earned his place. If Earl (or any of us) got there first but kept his (our) little collection in a shoe box - oh well. While obviously a decent photographer who worked hard carrying glass into the parks I do suspect his efforts are a bit derivative from work he saw of the period and places. Creating the photograph is only one piece of the market puzzle. Publication, gallery and museum publication, and validating criticism within the market genres are the other puzzle pieces; and much more difficult to develop than a sheet of film or paper. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Sep 2, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Ric Carter wrote: > it's interesting that uncle earl made at least some photos which experts > find virtually indistinguishable from ansel adams' > > but, since uncle earl took them rather than ansel, they have almost no > value > > such is the world of art and art investment BS;^)