buying amateur art?

[raytoei@gmail.com]

i have been buying since six months ago. i think i bought several prints from RFF members where in the classifieds. Also, I have been buying stuff from ebay.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Wow, I though I put enough qualifier's in my statement that it was my own loose definition. RichC refers to it as "my dictates". And Roger takes it literally and wants to debate it. And my original use of the term was only my attempt to differentiate what I had hanging in my home from lesser work purely to make the point that I was a bit of an art collector but that did not include photography.

I again acknowledge there is no hard definition about what is "legitimate art"

Maybe what I should have said was just "I don't buy photographs because it is not the medium of art that I appreciate most hanging on my walls. I do have quite an extensive library of books of photos however." Just one more reason that I always attempt to bypass labels.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Very good point as the term "legitimate art" certainly has a very loose definition. I don't know if there is an official definition (where is Chris Crawford when you need him?) but to my way of thinking it is characterized by these attributes:

* one of a kind, not produced in quantity
* produced by the creator of the original idea
* originally intended to evoke emotion to the viewer

I am open to ideas how you differentiate unique pieces from the things that are produced in quantity and sold specialized retail locations.

That does leave open the question if a digital print or "giclee" is priced high enough is a a legitimate piece of art. I would not tackle that one.

I'm here! Those definitions are not really very good, because a lot of art has been produced that violates those rules. I don't just mean modern/postmodern work, either.

One of a kind? Sculptures cast in bronze have been done for almost 3000 years, and many were done in multiples even in very early times.

Designed to evoke emotion? Some has, but a lot of great art from centuries past has been purely decorative or purely documentary. A lot of it has been designed to glorify the government/ruling class/religion of the state. We tend to look down on such propagandistic art made in modern times, but a lot of ancient and renaissance art that we regard as truly great/important was created as propaganda.

I generally think that artists should make their own art, but throughout history great artists like Michelangelo have had large numbers of assistants, many of them very talented artists themselves, working for them and doing a lot of the real work. Even in photography, a lot of great photographers like Cartier-Bresson paid others to make their prints.

 

[koven]

Ive sold prints off here through my site and I would definitely buy prints of some of the members here if it were sold at a reasonable prince. I only offer 8x10 and 8x12s though.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I'm here! Those definitions are not really very good, because .....

I certainly will defer to Chris since he is the one with the formal education and the advanced degree in art.

 

[ricnak]

I have bought from Rff members. They did not advertise to sell, so I PM'd or emailed them and asked if they would sell a print. All have obliged so far.

 

[Merumeni]

I certainly will defer to Chris since he is the one with the formal education and the advanced degree in art.

"The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim.
...
Those who find beatiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope."

I can only recommend Oscar Wilde's preface to his Dorian Gray.

Reproduction is a technical operation: almost everything can be reproduced. To mix technical capacities into an argument about creativity will not be very useful.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I can only recommend Oscar Wilde's preface to his Dorian Gray.

Such a modest man was our Oscar: "I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying."

😀

 

[noisycheese]

how do you feel about buying amateur art?
specifically about buying photographic prints from a 'no name' shooter?

does a small part of you say to yourself…'i could do that!' and so you pass up the buy.
i'm curious, very curious as i've seen a few brave members here put their images up for sale on the rff classifieds but have not seen much public action.
maybe the purchases are going on privately…and if so i wonder why that would be.

part of my curiosity involves what i think is the reverse action…that we like to buy gear from each other, leading me to what i think we all partly (at least) believe, that we are a gear site, a hobby site and not so much of an image site.

Being a no name shooter myself, I am always happy to buy the work of other no name shooters. 😀

If I see a print that I like and it is not out of reach money wise, I will buy it regardless of who made the image. If it is a "I could have done that" type of photo - well, I think a lot of us here "could have done that." But so what??

If it is some place I would want to go to but have not yet been able to visit, why not buy the print if it is priced reasonably? However: If the print in question is not well executed in terms of composition, execution and/or presentation, I would most likely not buy it.

Regarding my own prints - if one of my images comes up short, I won't make a print and hope someone else will buy it. We ought to only put our best work out in the world and ask others to part with their hard earned money for it. That's my way of operating - YMMV.