Imogen Cunningham print on Oprah's tv show

Ah, Jorge, ever willing to slip in a snide comment. Tell, me, when are you going to get around to posting some piccies or even (gasp) paying your dues for this site...

 

:-)

"As to the story of the Swedish eye surgeon who has to paint his own house, well, I rather suspect we're not getting the whole story there."

 

It says a lot for mankind that there are those of you out there that would work overtime for 5% of your regular pay, for the benefit of society. I can�t even get people to work overtime for time and a half.

 

However, your utopia will not work for long because while all of you are working overtime, I am going to be out playing with my toys. Just out of pure cussedness, I am going to do it where you can see me.

 

Pretty soon the less altruistic of you will ask your self: �why do I do all the work, while Neal has all the fun�, and you will be out there to.

 

That is why socialism, doesn�t raise all boats, it brings them down to the same level.

 

I might add, the Swedish people are the nicest, most socially conscious, concerned society that I have ever visited. They obey the law not from fear of getting caught but because they feel it is the right thing to do. There are only about 9 million of them, and they are well educated, and have the same values. If it doesn�t work there, it won�t work anywhere.

 

I had a different Swedish friend that spent his college years in the U.S.; tell me that if we implemented their programs here, everyone would just quit working.

Erm, I may be missing something... "Nicest", "most socially conscious", "obey the Law", "well educated".... erm... and this is a society that is "not working"?....

 

Oh, and as members of the European Union, Swedish people can choose to work in any member state country without restriction, so the fact the doctor in question chooses to continue to live in his native country probably says something about how well Sweden has got the balance right - even if you do have to do your own DIY...

<i>Ah, Jorge, ever willing to slip in a snide comment. Tell, me, when are you going to get around to posting some piccies or even (gasp) paying your dues for this site... </i><p>

 

I don't post piccies as you call them, I don't do critiques and I don't download images, I confine myself to the use of the forums which were always meant to be free. Since I don't use PN in any other way I don't feel I have to pay for something it was designed as a free exchange from the beginning. If you comment was meant as a put down you are barking up the wrong tree, I know the history of the forums and how they ended up here, another thing you apparently don't know anything about. :-)<p>

 

So you admit not to know anything about Mexico and socialist countries, why are you upset?<p>

Ah, poor little Jorge. Actually, I was curious to see how you reacted to a personal attack, as you seem so comfortable in handing them out.

 

Frankly, your reply seems pretty typical of a person who is worried by the idea of socialism - you just want to take without giving. What a truly sad world it would be if the vast majority of people didn't think differently from you. Well, I'm not your keeper and wouldn't want to be and I know that flame wars upset the moderators so I'll just leave you to your own devices.

Harvey, You troll. Go away. Go to some gray place where everyone is as miserable as you.

I'm not in the least bit miserable, nor am I trolling. I simply made a comment that someone took issue with in a not very pleasant manner and I replied in kind to see what he'd do.

 

Why is it that people get so upset when the facts are pointed out to them?

<i>Frankly, your reply seems pretty typical of a person who is worried by the idea of socialism</i><p>

 

LOL....as I said, I live in one, you on the other hand seem to be talking without any knowledge. As to attacks, I just agreed with you, you don't know anything about Mèxico or a socialist country, so your opinions about a socialism are easy to ignore.<p>

 

Funny things is you live in a country where the majority of the people <b>DO</b> think like me.<p>

 

You are correct about not being my keeper, you don't have the wherewithal to be and I am glad you will leave me to my devices, seems is the only thing you can do.

 

Cheers....

�Cunningham empowered her images by isolating her subject; she minimized the background, expanded scale with close-up scrutiny, and formalized presentation. �An emphasis on clarity, form, and definition displaced her previous use of pictorialist space.� Richard Lorenz, Imogen Cunningham, Flora, 1996, p. 12.

 

I think these words describe �Two Callas� exactly. The picture is pure form�contrast, texture, and contour. (Let�s assume that I�ve identified correctly the print that Oprah flashed momentarily across the screen when I just happened to be walking by the television in our bedroom). Only incidentally is the picture a record of calla lilies. This was the photographer who, according to Lorenz (p. 17), cultivated the exotic in her plant subjects, and never even photographed a rose! But California is not only the land of roses, it was also, if my and Marilyn�s memories serve us well, the land of calla lilies. I recall the calla as a very common so-called foundation planting which anyone could afford (here in the northeast you see it only in religious services, etc.). Cunningham avoided a clichéd image by turning her subject into pure form.

 

De gustibus non disputandum, but as I look over Lorenz� three volumes of Cunningham�s work I can�t help but think that �Two Callas� is one of her more successful efforts. Take a look at it, and judge for yourself. Any photographic print authenticated as Cunningham�s is going to be worth a lot, but I think this one could hold its own on intrinsic merit alone. Modernism may be out of fashion as an architectural aesthetic, but it�s still very much with us in other areas�at least that�s how I personally size things up at present.

 

What�s a photograph worth? I agree with the view that it�s worth what people are willing to pay for it. According to Oprah�s presentation, the woman who collected the $50,000 from the gallery used the money to put a down payment on a (very modest) house for her and her family. The $10,000 fee helped the gallery keep going. The story on national television promoted the reputation of a great American artist. As for the purchaser, would we have been happier if he or she had bought a Mercedes, or a yacht, or more house than anyone ever needed? I fail to see any losers here. If we�re going to critique the American economic system, why start with LF photography?

"I fail to see any losers here. If we�re going to critique the

American economic system, why start with LF photography?"

 

Well, Imogen Cunningham for one (or in this case, I guess the Imogen Cunningham Trust - but imagine for a monent she was still alive) - I'm all for instituting the system whereby artists receive a percentage on third party sales of their work.

 

tim

"American economic system"...

 

Why does the word 'oxymoron' drift across my mind?

Tim,

 

You're right. As so often, the artist is the loser, while others profit off her creations. Writers (as well as their publishers) have been victimized by copy machines for decades now. Same for sheet music. Not to mention the current cyber theft of the creative works of composers and musicians. The Ansel Adams trust seems to have things under control, but for every such posthumous winner how many losers are there? As for your plan, how would you enforce it?

"As for your plan, how would you

enforce it?"

 

I bel;ieve it's the law in France - read something on it a while back. I can't remeber all the details, but it seemed emminently sensible.

 

Certainly at auction (not sure about other sales), once the sales become "third party (i.e. sales after the original one by the artist to the first buyer) the original artist receives a percentage of the sale

I beleive California has a similar law where the artist gets 5% of the third party sale, but this relies on self reporting, somehow I doubt this has been enforced.

 

Frankly this has all come about due to "limited editions" and is the reason some galleries love the "limited edition" game and try to force photographers into doing it. Once the edition has reached its limit, galleries can swap and trade prints if they have a customer willing to pay big bucks for a print, thus leaving the photographer out of the game.