Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/11/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Nov 11, 2011, at 11:49 PM, R. Clayton McKee wrote: > And then there's THIS shot, this 7-figures-worth-of-WTeverlovingF?!? > print, which from what I can tell has no redeeming value > whatsobloodyEVER... > The only saving grace is that I never expected that stuff to make sense; > it's all marketing, and these days the only use I get out of the marketing > classes I was required to take is that I know what to ignore.... Just as you correctly described Ted's "preparation" and "reflexes" and "being" at precisely the right time and place; we must also put proper context to "art photographs" (or any other art form for that matter). Andreas Gursky's monumentally huge and extremely detailed photographs hold a very serious place in the history of photography; and photography's place within the world of two dimensional visual art. Whether you like his work or not remains obviously subjective. Though I'd guess that if you stood before his 8' to 20' foot prints you may feel differently. A 300 ppi jpg does not begin to suggest the experience of standing before the work. Nor does it begin help understand the very intentional use and need for scale; or the body of work the man has produced with focused attention over decades. I do not intend this to defend outrageous prices on art by living artists (anymore than I would defend outrageous salaries to athletes or film stars). Nor do I intend to claim that Gursky's work is "great art." Yet I can easily see Gursky's place in the "photography as art" world; as well as in the history of the photographic medium; as I can with most of the "art photographers" so often deprecated. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist