Fools Gold

<h1>Peter Lik Photo Sells for 6.5 Million. How?</h1>

<p><a name="00d08B"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=112337">Les Berkley</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 10, 2014; 12:41 p.m.</p>

<p>"Oh why can't I get a bigger ego? Seems to be all it takes <a href="http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/peter-lik-print-sells-6-5-million-shattering-record-expensive-photo/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">in this case</a>. For God's sake, it's a picture of Antelope Freaking Canyon! The are only a couple million such in existence. Am I envious? Of course; who isn't? Swagger around, show off your big, uh, <em>tripod</em> and there you go. Okay, Lik is technically competent, and knows how to get the looks-good-in-a-thumbnail super saturated colors. Not knocking this at all, but really--more than Adams or HCB or McCurry (who at least took <em>real</em> risks) or Gene Smith or Joel Meyerowitz?"</p>

<p>Wonder why I posed the question of "Fools Gold" when there so little respect we have for have for each other.... our fellow photographers..</p>

<p>If photography is really going to be art then it is only about the golden oldies....the new stuff is crap. As that poster spouted.</p>

<p>Sad.</p>

<p>"I purchased a Maggie Taylor (wife of Jerry Uelsmann), work of art last year...you can't even say she's a photographer as she uses scanned images of objects including old tintypes alongside her own photographs in a compilation that's more like a surrealistic montage of parts...so would that be considered art or photography or a photographically manipulated image and will some of these works someday be behind bullet proof glass (will they be valuable enough to be"</p>

<p>The Art world only seems to only really respect the abstract. Surrealistic montages, a slash of paint on a wall...says nothing does nothing.....the emperor without clothes. <br /> The documentry, not abstract, not a splash on a wall. A photographer of the world and humanity....Cinderella in the art world. The abstract, the slash of paint on the wall....real art.</p>

<p>Of course unless it is an oldie godly.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Allen, your comments betray a certain biases."</p>

<p>Of course.</p>

<p>This is a photographic forum so i wonder where the biased would be?....climb over the fence and look at the other side.......that is what i did... try it.</p>

<p>I just had the privilege of seeing original Leonardo da Vinci drawings. I have seen them all my life in books. Who would not agree that they are not among the most precious art ever made by our culture? Who can put a price on any art with some logical relation to artistic value? It is has no bearing on quality of expression or craft. Like everything, it only has our present material culture’s value. <br>

<br>

The depth of expression you obtain from art depends on your experience. It must express a certain intelligence and authority accessible to you. Strive to widen your critical point of view. You shouldn’t ask “Is that art?” The answer is always “Yes”.<br>

<br>

Art isn’t about media or craft. Art is part of our species’ expressive ability. </p>

<p>Strange to be talking about Leonardo and coming to the conclusion that art isn't about craft. Of course it's not <em>all</em> about or <em>primarily</em> about craft, but it can be very much about craft in certain instances, particularly da Vinci. How does one separate Leonardo's incredibly craftsmanship from his expressiveness? Or someone like Ansel Adams, for that matter? In so many cases craft and expression are symbiotic, almost as if one. Agree that the artistic value isn't a monetary value.</p>

<p>Fred G.<br /> There is no point of separating art from craft – sorry if I was unclear. Craft in all endeavors reveals humanities expressive capability. “Artists are not special kinds of persons. Every person is a special kind of artist.” (or something to that effect?) 11^th C. Scholastic Monk.<br /> <br /> The point I wanted to stress is that all pictures, literary, or musical expressions can be perceived as art. Were paleo people making <em>art</em> by their own reckoning? Nothing astounds me more than the sophistication of human thought with regard to expression. Earliest people were expressing life in the most humanly natural way. Who knows if our mind prepares naturally, special context for art to exist. Spaces exclusively for art? That is a modern, post paleo, thing, isn't it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Spaces exclusively for art? That is a modern, post paleo, thing, isn't it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. It's part of the process of human development that we now tend to set aside spaces for art, though graffiti artists, street performers, and others are broadening the bounds of where art can be seen and performed. Traveling in Germany recently, I was taken to a modern dance piece performed throughout a warehouse, from staircases to lobbies, etc. Some stuff is cyclical, some more forward-looking. It's OK with me if we now set aside museums and galleries and indoor theaters for the experiencing of art, for the most part. Just part of its development. Sometimes such delineation and even delimitation actually can open things up in a way. It certainly doesn't negate what they did in earlier days and, as you're saying, those early eras shouldn't be forgotten when addressing art's possibilities. <br>

<br>

Can't agree that the answer to the question "Is that art?" is always "Yes." At least for me, it is sometimes/often "No." If it were always "Yes," IMO, the concept of art becomes suspicious and tautological. I would probably agree that anything CAN BE art or has the potential to be experienced as art but would not agree that everything IS art.</p>

<p>Fred,<br /> I am sticking to the “every person is a special kind of artist” thought. It is an essentialist notion that appears in Eastern and Western culture. I find that art provides a means to express thoughts that resonate throughout humanity. Excellence of expression in any endeavor is praised as <em>artful</em> or as having great <em>beauty</em>. If nothing else it gives me hope that some wisdom exists in an irrational world.</p><div></div>

<p>LOL. While irrationality may work in art and, in fact, in many endeavors, I'm generally suspicious of it taking hold in conversation and especially in Philosophy!</p>

<p>Yes. It is essentialist. Something I reject fiercely. </p>

<p>I believe that art, like beauty, "is in the eye of the beholder".</p>

<p>Michael, the problem as I see it is that many people think a picture of Elvis on a black velvet background is art. That's in their eyes. And I have no trouble saying "no" to them. It's not art. I think it's OK for us to stand up for art and not accept everyone's opinion on the matter. I think it's perfectly OK for anyone to like or dislike anything they want. You want to like Elvis on velvet, be my guest. You want to think or say it's beautiful, more power to you. Call it art and I'm happy to tell you you're wrong.</p>

<p>Fred: You're wrong. Michael is right. But of course, that's my opinion. But, that's just as valid as your opinion. I think you're confusing what may be considered "good" art vs. "bad" art. But that too is in the eye of the beholder. In either case, it's still art because it effects the aesthetic sensibilities of the viewer. It also goes back to the definition of art; something we all have had long and inconclusive definitions and arguments here in PN.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alan, you may think one opinion is as valid as others. I don't. I take each opinion, consider what it's based on, what it says, what the context is, and judge it valid or not accordingly.</p>

<p>There are those who are of the opinion that climate change isn't affected by man's actions. They base that on bogus science and illiterate politics. There are those who are of the opinion that man does have a role in climate change. They base that on respected science of wide consensus. The latter opinion is valid and reasonable. The former opinion is invalid and unreasonable. The competing opinions, in a reasonable world, should not be given equal weight or standing.</p>

<p>Whether something is good art is a different question from whether something is art and I'm not confusing those two. Whether something is good art or bad art is a matter of opinion and, while I might try to show someone who thought something wasn't very good why I think it's good and maybe convince them to give it a second look, I wouldn't say their opinion was wrong or invalid. It's not like opinions on climate change, which can be more objectively determined.</p>

<p>But if someone thinks Elvis on velvet is art, I would tell them they're wrong. I think it has nothing to do with taste whether Elvis on velvet is art. I think it has to do with a coherent notion of art. Art is whatever anyone decides is art, absent any context or any other factors, is incoherent. You're entitled to be of the opinion that that vacuum cleaner over there is a desk and if you keep referring to that vacuum cleaner as a desk, I'm entitled to draw the conclusion that you don't understand basic vocabulary or see you as unreasonable and somewhat incoherent. Likewise if you were to call Elvis on black velvet art. Again, if you like Elvis on black velvet, more power to you and hang it on your wall and enjoy it. Just don't misappropriate the language and call it art, unless you either present it in such a way or such a context to make it so. That means that, for me, anything has the potential to be art (or be seen as art), given the right context and presentation, but not everything is art, and among the things that are not currently art is the Elvis on black velvet I encounter in the local tourist/kitsch shop.</p>

<p><br /> <br /> The I of the beholder.<br /> <em>Ekphrasis</em><br /> I saw this word and could not (would not!) use it in a sentence or even pronounce it. It means to <em>expand</em> on art with art. That may apply to “found” objects placed in certain contexts <em>becoming </em>art. Kind of? NeoDADA or Fluxus or personal art “atlases” fit in somewhere.<br /> You might say that kitschy things like paintings on velvet become <em>expanded </em>versions depending on where they are displayed. Does dis-placement of kitsch items wittily comment on culture, or are they just our sentimental, personal jokes? <br /> Many things look <em>better </em>as photographs for various reasons long expounded on here.<br /> Elvis on velvet looks better as it is. It really says “Elvis”. What more do you want from art? <br /> <br /> “A thing of beauty is a joy forever.”</p>

<blockquote>

<p>objects placed in certain contexts <em>becoming </em>art</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. My point exactly. Potential.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It really says “Elvis”. What more do you want from art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Plenty. I'm sure a credible case could be made that some family snaps of Winston Churchill <em>really say</em> Churchill, even more so than the famous <a href="http://www.phillips.com/Xigen/lotimg/Yousuf-Karsh/NY040313/165">KARSH PHOTO</a>. I wouldn't burden the innocence and simplicity of those snapshots with the label art. And it may help to make my point to say I don't much care for Karsh in general but I recognize his portrait of Churchill as art.</p>

 

<p><strong>Addition:</strong> And even though I don't much care for Karsh and think there is such a thing as bad art, I wouldn't call that portrait a bad portrait or bad art. I'd just call it an art portrait I don't like.</p>

<p>Fred G.<br>

I'm thinking of Eggelston's "Graceland" Book. Who didn't take those pictures? I guess that was THE point. <br>

My view of Karsh is rather cynical. It is probably due to his popularity. Everyone wanted him to do a <em>Karsh</em> of them and he obliged. I LOL every time I see the Kennedy portrait.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Alan, I think we can also work backwards. Artists, in the majority of cases, make art (or find it and present it). This is where a body of work can be determinative as opposed to an individual piece. Now, honestly, I haven't thought this one through so I'm putting it out there more as a consideration than a definitive conclusion I've drawn. But I might say that if I've determined, through a body of work, that someone is an artist, then the things they produce that comprise that body of work are each art. That's where bad art can come in. Even a good artist can go awry and produce a bad painting, for example. But, I'd say, if it comes from an artist (as determined by the body of work) then it's art even if bad. Now, being produced or found by an artist isn't the ONLY way something can become art. This thought experiment was just meant to suggest that categorizing something as art can sometimes be as much a function of who made it as what it is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Art is whatever anyone decides is art, absent any context or any other factors, is incoherent. You're entitled to be of the opinion that that vacuum cleaner over there is a desk and if you keep referring to that vacuum cleaner as a desk, I'm entitled to draw the conclusion that you don't understand basic vocabulary or see you as unreasonable and somewhat incoherent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred: I never said art is whatever anyone decides art is. I said art has an aesthetic component, it's generally non-utilitarian, has no real function. You just look at it and it does something to your mind, senses and spirit. </p>

<p>What makes it better art, in my opinion, is if it does more to your mind, senses and spirit than another piece of art. So if one photo of a landscape excites you more because of the way it catches the sunlight, than it's better art than a photo that doesn't catch the sunlight in quite the same way. Better artists may just have a better handle on the craft. But both photos are art because they operate on the viewer's mind. One just does a better job at it because of the greater emotional effect. </p>

<p>Now some "experts" of art rate art using different parameters. They may be effected by what's in style currently, or what they can sell for more money, or by it's historical appeal and for lots of other reasons. But my take all other remaining equal is the best art is measured against how great it effects the viewer on an emotional and spiritual level.</p>

<p>Alan, sorry, I was going by what you said in relation to Michael's comment. Your clarification in your most recent post makes a lot more sense to me. Michael said, <em>"Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder."</em> I always took that quote about beauty to mean each of us determines what is beautiful. So, when Michael applied it to art, I took him to be saying that each of us determines what is art.</p>

<p>I don't want to put words in your mouth (or Michael's, if I interpreted his use of that quote incorrectly), but I'd phrase my own belief and perhaps what you've said in your followup post as something along the lines of <em>"Taste is in the eye of the beholder."</em></p>

<p>One of the reasons I rarely give quick definitions of art is that they're prone to be contradicted very easily. Rather than a definition that includes this or that characteristic, I think art needs a discussion. Toward that end, and we don't really have to discuss it here because it gets long, I would ask you what the difference is between "art" and "aesthetic" since you used "aesthetic" to help define "art." And though there have been theories about art not being utilitarian, and I think there's room for that observation and it does seem to apply in a lot of cases, there are also many counterexamples. A lot of art is political, from Picasso's <em>Guernica</em> to Serrano's <em>Piss Christ </em>to Richard Serra's<em> Stop Bush.</em> Some even think, and it's certainly worth some consideration even if not completely embraced, that ALL art is political. We now house ancient tools in museums which were utilitarian at their core and could still be so. Music is used in therapy for people with autism as is dance. I think art has broadened in scope to where the non-utilitarian view of it may be a thing of the past.</p>

<p>In terms of judging art good, I think you make valid points about its ability to move our mind, senses, and spirit. I also think, in many cases, the level or degree of craft plays a role in my assessment of how good a piece of art is.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred. one of the few times we seem to agree.</p>

<p>Regarding your question, sure art can be political. But that still follows my definition that if it effects your feelings about something, or creates a feeling, then it's art. Also, art can have utilitarian values such as architecture, where you can live in a painting, so to speak, as well as get a soaring feeling just looking at it. As a New Yorker, I still look with amazement on the beauty of buildings in Manhattan when ever I'm driving or walking around there.</p>

<p>Literary arts, music, dance, it's all art. We seem to have a great need to feed our sense of awe, our feelings and and our spirits without utility, and art does all that for us. Aren't we lucky?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We seem to have a great need to feed our sense of awe, our feelings and and our spirits without utility.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm just adding that feeding our sense of awe, our feelings and our spirits has utility as opposed to being without utility. </p>

<p>I was using the meaning of utility as providing for physical purposes such as food, or shoes so we can walk more easily. But I do agree that art provides a sublime utility, one of nourishing our minds, hearts and souls. <br>

<br>

I have wondered if humans are the only creatures who have this sense of awe, who actually seek it in art and elsewhere.</p>

<p>I wonder what the bears were thinking?<br>

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=bear+sunset+cartoon&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002</p>

 

<p>Speaking of non-humans, I operate under the assumption that art isn't an off-on affair and it's not an all-or-nothing affair either. I think there's art in a spider's web glistening in morning sunlight and yet I don't have to take the more distinctive position that the spider's web is a work of art. I think a spider is capable of making art though it may not be capable of recognizing it. I think people can sometimes make art without recognizing it or intending it to be art.</p>

<p>While a lot of art inspires awe, that word has a reverential and even sacred bent that I think goes against the grain of some art. A lot of art, particularly of the last century, is not really awesome or awe-inspiring but no less important. Good, strong art can sometimes be a real downer, more confrontational than awe-inspiring.</p>

<p>Larry Clark's photos come to mind.</p>

<p>To the spider, its web is a tool, a utility to catch dinner. But it requires a viewer to see the web as art. I agree we can often make things used as a utility that others see as art. Architecture, a cabinet maker, etc. </p>

<p>I like the word awe. While it can take on a reverential role as to God and religion, the initial reaction for me is something that diminishes my ego, usually suddenly. I remember when I drove to Yosemite Valley for the first time. Coming out of the tunnel and into the parking lot at Inspiration Point, the perfect name for that spot. Getting out of the car and looking into that amazing valley. I was awestruck. I felt and was made small by the amazing strength and majesty it projected. Everyone who has been there says the same thing. And every photographer tries to catch that feeling; most fail, of course. </p>

<p>When art can stop us for the moment and subdue our imperial urges and humble us, that is the awe I speak of. What photographer doesn't aim for that high ideal in their work? I know I do. </p>