DSLRUsers.com

linky to start with, this is quite a good article and goes some way to explaining why some images that appear ordinary are indeed art.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/20/why-this-photograph-is-worth-578500/?ref=nf

Whenever I read those comments I imagine how frustrating it must be to have such a limited and cynical understanding of how art is valued. It must seem like the world has gone mad. But while it is probably true that not everyone in the art world is equally sane, there are in fact some sound reasons why some photographs are more valuable than others. Once you understand what those reasons are, your appreciation of art will grow and the frustration will go away.

I will not even bother to read the opinion of someone else when anyone with a fluff of intelligence will know that likes and dislikes are personal to the individual.

The one thing that really ticks me off is for someone trying to change my mind about something that neither of us has any idea about.

sirhc55 wrote:I will not even bother to read the opinion of someone else when anyone with a fluff of intelligence will know that likes and dislikes are personal to the individual.

ok. thankyou for your input.

sirhc55 wrote:I will not even bother to read the opinion of someone else when anyone with a fluff of intelligence will know that likes and dislikes are personal to the individual.

I reckon there is no harm in trying to understand it anyway possible rather than just give up or just assume that we already have the answer.

This is an insight of how artists think; although I think they are full of crap most of the time. [or grass...or both.... ]

It is an interesting read, but you still need to make up your own mind if you like it or not and if you would pay the going price.

It was an interesting and short read

I'm still not a believer (in that I still don't believe I could say a single image or person defined a turning point in history in this way). I do understand the authors point of view - I just choose to still have my own opinion

So David Cohen de Lara is entitled to "explode with righteous indignation" but no-one else is?

The real reason ‘Memphis (Tricycle)’ has come to stand out is because it so clearly typifies the author and the movement he was part of.

I know nothing about the author or the movement and nor should I. If this is what is required to understand art, I have no interest. Perhaps the next time I get some negative critique on my photos I should respond by saying they don't understand me or my movement. Sheesh.

I also have no interesting in someone telling me I'm wrong because I don't agree with him.

He's also a poor communicator.

One comment on this:

Emperor's New Clothes - you all know the fable. Those who think such "art" has such high value see clothing. All I can see is lot's of skin

stubbsy wrote:Those who think such "art" has such high value see clothing. All I can see is lot's of skin

Can you bring those X ray glasses to the next meet? I call shot gun on borrowing it for an extended time.....

Also, I forgot to mention that I reckon that tricycle needs a slight crop from the bottom.

surenj wrote:Also, I forgot to mention that I reckon that tricycle needs a slight crop from the bottom.

i was gonna say its far too centralised

surenj wrote:

stubbsy wrote:Those who think such "art" has such high value see clothing. All I can see is lot's of skin

Can you bring those X ray glasses to the next meet? I call shot gun on borrowing it for an extended time.....

Also, I forgot to mention that I reckon that tricycle needs a slight crop from the bottom.

Suren, the next "meet" is this Sunday, and you want to see Gerry, Gary, Mj or myself with x-ray glasses?

Reschsmooth wrote:Suren, the next "meet" is this Sunday, and you want to see Gerry, Gary, Mj or myself with x-ray glasses?

i look good in a thong, just check out that other art thread

So, who's up for a tricycle mini-meet? Let's see if we can't better this effort…

Steffen wrote:So, who's up for a tricycle mini-meet?

Nah... it's already been done!

He claims that people who are unable to unable to understand why a mundane photograph is worth a motza and is therefore great art are missing the point. More to the point, he's missing the point that what's commercially successful is not necessarily art. Otherwise the criterion of Art is "what Donald Trump likes". For example many art galleries of a certain vintage are filled with late nineteenth century paintings that were deemed the height of attainment in their time but are now generally recognised as turgid pretentious dross.