RE: [Leica] price of art prints (was re: kyle's fine art)

[BOB KRAMER <BobKramer@COOPERCARRY.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tina Manley [mailto:images@InfoAve.Net]
> Subject: RE: [Leica] price of art prints (was re: kyle's fine art)
> 
> And the person who made that thing of beauty is supposed to 
> make his/her 
> living how?  Doctors are paid for their talent.  Lawyers are 
> paid for their 
> knowledge.  Why not artists?

I wonder if you might not be speaking more from the perspective of a
commercial photographer than an artist.  The cold hard reality is very, very
few artists make enough to survive without another form of income.  Even the
very best.  How many photographers, even the greats survive on their fine
art work alone?  Maybe Eggleston, but he has family money I am told.

- -  Walker Evans worked for magazines and taught at Yale when he wasn't
subsidized by the government.
- -  Bruce Davidson did commercial photography.
- -  Meatyard was an optician.
- -  Winogrand taught and did commercial photography.
- -  Jerry Uelsmann taught at the University of Florida his entire career.
- -  Duane Michaels spent the majority of his career doing commercial studio
work.

This list goes on and on (these are the ones that only immediately come to
mind).  Certainly commercial photographers shouldn't be undercut by hack
amateur wannabees.  But I dunno... I have always thought of Kyle as more of
an artist than a commercial photographer.  And as an artist who subsidizes
his art with a day-job, I appreciate his willingness to make his work
affordable to the rest of us (until some gallery gets their claws into him).
Anyway, just my thoughts on photography as a career vs. an art form.

BK
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html