A spin-off thread: when is a photo a work of art?

<p>Thank you <strong>Luis</strong>,</p>

<p>apart from a brief stint into marketing upon John MacPherson's posts, I deliberately skipped this specific aspect of art creation.<br>

Simply because it is a completely different type of skill in respect to artistic creation, to creativity and ingenuity.</p>

<p>There are some artists which heavily relate on marketing. I don't want to say that marketing prevails.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if an artist does not know, or care, about marketing skills, it will be very difficult for him to become known.<br>

It's true that all artist are not equal, there are differences in skills, capabilities, creativity, which determine the artistic output.<br>

To paraphrase: "<em>the artistic purpose may be equal, but there is artistic output that is more equal than other work</em>".</p>

<p>That's the real issue in my view.<br>

______________________________________</p>

<p>Back on the issue of quantity vs. parsimony, there is an elementary economic rule which relates quantity and price (value, if we want).<br>

The higher the quantity, the lower the value, and the price.</p>

<p>High value - <em>as a general rule</em> - <strong>needs </strong>to be rare, parsimonious.</p>

<p>In photography, the output probably needs to be rare to be valued, and since the technique is quite simple to handle, it's the output which needs to be rare to be valued.</p>

<p>I was talking to a wedding photographer, he told me that the "wedding photography output is unique" and therefore a good wedding photographer can have an excellent demand.<br>

On the other hand, any wealthy hobbyist can buy a 15.000 Euro equipment, go to the stadium and photograph the event just for fun and offer, and sell, his pictures for a couple of hundred Euros, killing the competition with professional photographers who need to make a living out of it.</p>

<p><strong>Luca - "</strong>Simply because it is a completely different type of skill in respect to artistic creation, to creativity and ingenuity."</p>

<p>It's worse than that, far more direct and personal, because the artist is present in the work as an individual. Ever notice how most artists seem eccentric/wild/unusual/etc? This fuses into the work.I should not have used the word "price", because it automatically links to marketing in people's minds, but I meant the quality of the art itself, whether it sells or not, although there is a connection between the two.</p>

<p>I mentioned Moonrise because it shows the fallacy of thinking that value and rarity are always connected. There's a lot of Moonrises, but the demand far exceeds the supply. <em>Demand matters.</em> It's not the rarity per se, but the availability in relation to the demand. As it is in any market. Most artists could be producing photographs in editions of two (2) prints and it wouldn't matter.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Perhaps we can consider the question in terms that are a bit far from marketing, or accessibility, or rarity. The following quote (posthumous apologies to M-A, if I have translated it badly) regarding an artist and his canvas, not remote in kind from the photographic print, does relate in a way to rarity, but not just rarity for rarity's sake:</p>

<p>"The ability to fix a silent poem onto canvas is a heavenly gift" (Marc-Aurèle Fortin)<br>

("Pouvoir fixer sur une toile une poésie, c'est une possession céleste"). </p>

<p>Fortin was like an untamed eagle, a passionate poet, who asked directions from no one.</p>

<p>In addition to a perception of the unexpected, fixing a silent poem onto a two dimensional surface is much of what I also think when I see a photograph as art.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is for me too, Arthur.</p>

<p>I would like to say that this post, like most long-lived ones here, has covered a lot of ground, and some of the sideboards directly from the OP. On the web or in real life, a large per cent of all non-family/friends' photographs are seen in a market context, even if not viewed with intent to purchase. Desire motivates many a transaction.</p>

<p>"when is a photo a work of art?"</p>

<p>A work of Art is very subjective to the viewers tastes and mores. But if pressed to give an answer....<br /> <br />I often think a Photograph can take on a life of its own trancsending the mere Photographer and in a sense transcends to another place. That moment captured before the before and before the after...in that moment when revealed frozen in time something unforseen happens not noticed . A story unfolds which captures imaginations and has a sublime effect on both the conscious and unconcious; when you see them you just know a special story is being told. It is like looking around a corner and getting a small glimpse of another place you did not know was there.</p>