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 (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sat Jul 3 21:20:36 2004

On 7/3/04 1:37 PM, "Nathan Wajsman" <> typed:

> But Tina, I assume that all of the named photographers entered into
> whatever agreements they have with Getty voluntarily. So I still do not
> see what is bad or immoral about these sales. Sure, from yours or Ted's
> point of view it might be better if no print ever changed hands for less
> than $500, but photographs, even fine art ones, are a commodity whose
> price is set by supply and demand. There is nothing inherently moral or
> immoral about that.
> Nathan

I guess being an idiot sellout is not a moral issue.
Is it ethical one instead?
I have no idea on these things being a long time card carrying sociopath.
Antisocial personality disorder. Take two aspirin and call me in the
morning. Drink lots of orange juice.
The fact is someone who wants to be Professional Photographer has to compete
with amateurs and dilettantes.
Its a drag downing process.

We have to compete with people who will do photography at break even or
loose money prices because it's really just a rationalization for a hobby.
A hobby which is as time consuming as it can be afforded to be.
In butterfly collecting would such a thing happen? No they'd just do it and
not try to justify it with a business card. Enjoy it.

It is not being approached as a way to pay the rent.
That is paid in other ways the same way the new lens is paid for. Another
job. Trust fund. Crime. All or none of the above.

Mark Rabiner
Portland Oregon

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