Ahem.... I have a basic question

[Bill Clark]

Dear Bill,

Does a good picture have to sell? If it does sell, is its price the sole indicator of its merit?

Cheers,

First question:

It depends.

Does the maker have a day job? Or money from another source to live?

However, it's nice to have someone think highly of a persons work to get paid and with a retainer up front.

Second question:

Price isn't the sole indicator of its merit. It's just one of many.

Thanks for your questions.

 

[Roger Hicks]

First question:

It depends.

Does the maker have a day job? Or money from another source to live?

However, it's nice to have someone think highly of a persons work to get paid and with a retainer up front.

Second question:

Price isn't the sole indicator of its merit. It's just one of many.

Thanks for your questions.

Dear Bill,

Highlight: No it doesn't. That's on a par with saying that Van Gogh's pictures weren't very good because they didn't sell. It's almost on a par with saying that a prostitute must be a beautiful woman, or vice versa.

From which it follows that price is not necessarily any indicator of merit at all.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

😎

From which it follows that price is not necessarily any indicator of merit at all.

I used to work with someone who was forever saying that "price is an indicator of quality". I disagreed and got out of the deal. He went bankrupt, I didn't.

Just sayin'. 😎

 

[Sparrow]

Hmmm, let's see...

The most expensive photograph ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II
Recipe? Insist on showing a meaningless image in huge size. (photoshop it a bit to eliminate distracting parts of reality) Insist for several years with the help of complacent art dealers, who will bid up the auctions for you. Use an 8x10 field camera or an Iphone - does not matter.

The second most expensive photograph ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_96
Recipe: be born as a good looking girl. Insist on dressing up strangely and making selfies in various poses. Use whatever camera is handy. Repeat for 40 years without ever saying to yourself: what the f..ck am I still doing after all these years, instead of looking for a job or starting to make good photography?

The third most expensive photograph ever:
http://www.greynotgrey.com/blog/2012/05/15/jeff-wall-dead-troops-talk/
Recipe: become a photoshop geek, cut and paste freely, make sure that whatever comes out of it is shocking enough to draw attention and sell. No need for any camera whatsoever.

At this point, you might start seeing a pattern....

Really? I'd have thought this one ... but as others have said I don't equate good with costly

 

[Bill Clark]

Hi Roger,

I haven't lived like Van Gogh.

Perhaps his choice.

Mine as well.

Not to sound like a smarty pants, I probably will never be as famous as Van Gogh. At least I hope not.

Can a person prostitute their art only for money?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[paparazzi mano]

hmmmmmmm

hmmmmmmm

Hmmm, let's see...

The most expensive photograph ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II
Recipe? Insist on showing a meaningless image in huge size. (photoshop it a bit to eliminate distracting parts of reality) Insist for several years with the help of complacent art dealers, who will bid up the auctions for you. Use an 8x10 field camera or an Iphone - does not matter.

The second most expensive photograph ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_96
Recipe: be born as a good looking girl. Insist on dressing up strangely and making selfies in various poses. Use whatever camera is handy. Repeat for 40 years without ever saying to yourself: what the f..ck am I still doing after all these years, instead of looking for a job or starting to make good photography?

The third most expensive photograph ever:
http://www.greynotgrey.com/blog/2012/05/15/jeff-wall-dead-troops-talk/
Recipe: become a photoshop geek, cut and paste freely, make sure that whatever comes out of it is shocking enough to draw attention and sell. No need for any camera whatsoever.

At this point, you might start seeing a pattern....

I must say that neither does anything for me. especially Rhein II. Its just a boring manipulated picture. At least the horizon is level. hehehe

 

[Roger Hicks]

I must say that neither does anything for me. especially Rhein II. Its just a boring manipulated picture. At least the horizon is level. hehehe

Rhein II, like all of the (small amount of) Gursky I have seen, depends on sheer size for most or all of its impact/merit/whatever. I'm not wild about Gursky either, but my opinion went up quite a few notches when I saw originals instead of reproductions (worse still on screen). The opposite was true of Ansel Adams: for my taste, many of his pictures are grotesquely over-enlarged and look better in books. Pictures have a size they "want" (or need) to be, and Rhein II needs to be BIG to have any detectable merit.

Cheers,

R

 

[thegman]

Dear Bill,

Highlight: No it doesn't. That's on a par with saying that Van Gogh's pictures weren't very good because they didn't sell. It's almost on a par with saying that a prostitute must be a beautiful woman, or vice versa.

From which it follows that price is not necessarily any indicator of merit at all.

Cheers,

R.

But isn't that the meaning of 'It depends', that it depends on other factors?

The price (in money) that people are willing to pay for something is of course not the only factor in deciding how good something is (to them), but surely it can be considered one of the factors?

For example, I just bought a new phone, the model up on my old one, which I contrived to break. I could have bought the old one again, as I liked it, or I could spend about $100 AUD more for the model up on that.

I decided to spend the $100 more, hoping it would get me a better built phone (it did). For the quality increase would I have spent $200 more? Perhaps. $300, possibly not. $400 more? No.

So while my new phone is better than the old one, it's only worth a certain amount to me.

So basically, I don't believe it's at all on a par with your comparisons, price is certainly not always an indicator of merit, but it can be. It depends.

To take another example, in Australia, Lagavulin (or Laphroaig if you prefer) is quite expensive, but it's certainly worth it to me. Double the price, and it isn't, except maybe on special occasions or something.

Cheers

Garry

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

I haven't lived like Van Gogh.

Perhaps his choice.

Mine as well.

Not to sound like a smarty pants, I probably will never be as famous as Van Gogh. At least I hope not.

Can a person prostitute their art only for money?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Dear Bill,

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

Vincent created the art he did because... well, because that's what he did. You do what you do. I do what I do. We all make some compromises in order to live (well, except perhaps those who inherit huge amounts of money) but I don't really see any great relationship between your choices, Vincent's or mine, though each of us individually must make/have made his own compromises.

Why would you not want to be as famous as Vincent? I'm not saying I do; but equally, I wouldn't say I don't.

And, finally, I can't quite see what you're saying about "prostituting art only for money". With a few exceptions (such as temple prostitution, and as I understand it, even there, money is involved), isn't prostitution pretty much defined by its relationship with money?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

But isn't that the meaning of 'It depends', that it depends on other factors?

The price (in money) that people are willing to pay for something is of course not the only factor in deciding how good something is (to them), but surely it can be considered one of the factors?

For example, I just bought a new phone, the model up on my old one, which I contrived to break. I could have bought the old one again, as I liked it, or I could spend about $100 AUD more for the model up on that.

I decided to spend the $100 more, hoping it would get me a better built phone (it did). For the quality increase would I have spent $200 more? Perhaps. $300, possibly not. $400 more? No.

So while my new phone is better than the old one, it's only worth a certain amount to me.

So basically, I don't believe it's at all on a par with your comparisons, price is certainly not always an indicator of merit, but it can be. It depends.

To take another example, in Australia, Lagavulin (or Laphroaig if you prefer) is quite expensive, but it's certainly worth it to me. Double the price, and it isn't, except maybe on special occasions or something.

Cheers

Garry

Dear Garry,

"It depends" is perfectly fair in response to "can price be an indicator of merit?" -- we all agree it can -- but it is no reply at all to "Does a good picture have to sell?"

No, it doesn't.

To continue the alcoholic analogy, if you triple-distil a perfect peach brandy, do you have to sell it to validate its quality? More realistically for most of us, if you cook a perfect meal, do you have to sell it?

No. Quality in both cases is independent of price. The same surely, is true of art (including photography). If Ansel Adams had never sold a single picture, would his pictures be diminished in any way?

Cheers,

R.

 

[maddoc]

"Sometimes I wonder what makes a good photograph?"

I think the answer is similar to "what makes a delicious meal ?" The ingredients, the cook, the place and time where it is served ?

Therefore ... a good photograph is one were the majority of important factors play well together, may it be composition, light, the subject (or lack of it) or the timing. The technical aspects might be important for the photographer, who took a good photograph but not for the viewer.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Good photograph? Let's skip it and look at good photography.
For some - images with sharp expensive lens and DOF from zero to infinity is good photography. For others - soft images with dark corners from Holga.
Good photography isn't related to the gear. At all, as long as choice of it makes sense.
I wouldn't do macro with Holga 🙂

 

[swifty63]

Sometimes I wonder...?

Me too!..........

 

[jsrockit]

Hmmm, let's see...

The most expensive photograph ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II
Recipe? Insist on showing a meaningless image in huge size. (photoshop it a bit to eliminate distracting parts of reality) Insist for several years with the help of complacent art dealers, who will bid up the auctions for you. Use an 8x10 field camera or an Iphone - does not matter.

The second most expensive photograph ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_96
Recipe: be born as a good looking girl. Insist on dressing up strangely and making selfies in various poses. Use whatever camera is handy. Repeat for 40 years without ever saying to yourself: what the f..ck am I still doing after all these years, instead of looking for a job or starting to make good photography?

The third most expensive photograph ever:
http://www.greynotgrey.com/blog/2012/05/15/jeff-wall-dead-troops-talk/
Recipe: become a photoshop geek, cut and paste freely, make sure that whatever comes out of it is shocking enough to draw attention and sell. No need for any camera whatsoever.

At this point, you might start seeing a pattern....

Sounds like someone is a bit envious. 😱😉

 

[hepcat]

To the OP: This is an absurdly simple question with an equally absurdly simple answer.

A "good" photograph is one I like.

And each of us knows what we like.

It's as simple as that.