andrew goldsworthy... a sort of photographer ?

william l. palminteri · November 8, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2416431">Stephen Hipperson</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Nov 07, 2009; 01:13 p.m.

<a rel="nofollow" href="/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> - "I wouldn't want to guage the "value" of Richard Wagner's works by the fragility of the paper they were written on." But how much for a the original paper score compared to the cost of a modern 'copy'?

</blockquote>

Stephen, that's all true, and all god points. If the art starts on its own merit, the medium is insignificant except for "collector" value.

A Wagnwerian opera stands on its own, whether the charts are originals or Kinko's copies, just as a "Weegee" photo is what it is, and is instantly recognisable as such. How many copies, etc. don't affect the value of great art. as far as I'm concerned.

Bill P.

william l. palminteri · November 8, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1706103">Felix Grant</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 07, 2009; 11:47 a.m.

Bill P: without disagreeing with your main point, I'm intrigued by your analogy. One can learn to sight read musical notation; I can't imagine being able to do the same with a digital image file? In one case, it can be done unaided by eye and brain, in the other a reader technology is required. Going back to "value" ... it's a word with many meanings. The value of Wagner's music is one thing; it varies with the listener, but is independent of scarcity or abundance of physical score copies.

</blockquote>

Felix, my point is that I can look at a copy, print, or magazine layout of greart art and get darned near the same thrill as seeing the original in a gallery. What the original is "worth" is of no interest to me. What it SAYS as a piece of art is worth EVERYTHING to me.

Bill P.

stephen_hipperson · November 8, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> :- "How many copies, etc. don't affect the value of great art. as far as I'm concerned."

While I empathise with the sentiment, I suspect in reality we might prefer to pay $300 for a hand printed Ansel Adams landscape than $300 dollars for a mass produced, 'digitally re-mastered' print from the nearest frame shop.

I think my point about the music was that each performance is unique, because of the intepretation somebody else puts on it, a CD of the performance will always be the same. Also, from the few manuscripts I've seen, the composer annotates outside the general music scale, which I doubt is taken forward into 'Kinko' copies. Music is 'difficult', does the value lie in the performance or on the paper? A bit like a flat pack wardrobe?

At the end of the day, I doubt few people would argue that a 2-D photographic representation, which is fixed can have as much impact as being in the presence of the original 3-D work (which will be unique for every veiwing - in Goldsworthy's case, because of weather conditions/time of day etc. ) (I differentiate between 'art' photography and other genre - sport, documentary, journalism).

"What it SAYS as a piece of art is worth EVERYTHING to me." - I would agree with this sentiment, however I do find that, presumably because of my particular interest, when I view photographs I have a tendency to concern myself more about how the photographer has applied 'the rules' than the message the photograph is giving. (I suspect this is true for many photographers, judging by many of the critiques I read, but that's another debate, which may very well have been had many times here before!)

william l. palminteri · November 8, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2416431">Stephen Hipperson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Nov 08, 2009; 06:15 a.m.

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> :- "How many copies, etc. don't affect the value of great art. as far as I'm concerned." While I empathise with the sentiment, I suspect in reality we might prefer to pay $300 for a hand printed Ansel Adams landscape than $300 dollars for a mass produced, 'digitally re-mastered' print from the nearest frame shop.

</blockquote>

Stephen, I doubt that you could find a hand printed adams for that low price of $300.00.

From Sotheby's......

<a href="http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159433913"></a> LOT 123

ANSEL ADAMS 1902-1984 'SAND DUNES, OCEANO, CALIFORNIA'

6,000—9,000 USD Lot Sold. Hammer Price with Buyer's Premium: 12,500 USD measurements measurements note 19½ by 14 7/8 in. (49.5 by 37.8 cm.) Description mounted, signed by the photographer in pencil on the mount, his Carmel studio stamp (BMFA 11), titled and dated in an unidentified hand in ink, on the reverse, matted, circa 1950, printed in the 1970s (400 Photographs, p. 342; Classic Images, pl. 70; Lane Collection, pl. 64; Examples, p. 148)

Bill P.

Norma Desmond · November 8, 2009

"Felix, my point is that I can look at a copy, print, or magazine layout of greart art and get darned near the same thrill as seeing the original in a gallery." --Bill P.

</blockquote>

My experience is so different. I'm so amazed at what a different viewing experience it is to see the actual print or painting. The first time I saw a collection of famous Impressionists in Paris, I cried standing in front of some of those paintings. Literally. I grew up seeing books or college dorm posters. Seeing color subtleties, looking directly at paint textures and brush strokes, was in many cases like seeing these works for the first time. Recently there was an extensive Warhol exhibit in San Francisco, and I was amazed at how seeing his craft up close and personal added to the experience and to my imagination and the emotional effect the work had on me.

I just saw an Avedon, and last year a Leibovitz show, here as well. If nothing else (and there was plenty else) just the variety of scale alone of many of the photos made an incredible difference in my impression. So much detail that I'd never seen that makes a beautiful print what it is was evident.

Listening to Tchaikovsky on a car radio is one thing. I love it as I'm driving along on the open road. But hearing the breath and breadth of a live symphony orchestra, the sheer volume of a great symphony hall, is so different. Having gotten used to the less-than-desirable acoustics of the symphony hall in San Francisco, the first time I went to Amsterdam's Concertgebouw, I knew how important medium was to message.

I do agree that what something is "worth" is only of passing interest to me if at all. I'm not a collector, though I understand why a one-of-a-kind original would be worth what it is. "Collector" and "appreciator" don't necessarily go hand in hand. I also agree with you to the extent that, as a kid, we used to get to take poster size copies of great paintings home with us for a month at a time, so I always had something I loved hanging on my wall. I don't want to minimize how much that meant to me. But as much as that experience allowed me to have what experiences I did, I wouldn't compare what I was seeing with what I eventually saw when I went to a museum.

william l. palminteri · November 8, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred Goldsmith</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub3.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 08, 2009; 10:00 a.m.

"Felix, my point is that I can look at a copy, print, or magazine layout of greart art and get darned near the same thrill as seeing the original in a gallery." --Bill P.

</blockquote>

My experience is so different. I'm so amazed at what a different viewing experience it is to see the actual print or painting.

</blockquote>

Fred, you're right, nothing compares to the real article, with the exception of "live" perfoormances of rock bands in the 69's and 70's which were usually horrible compared to the album.

I'm fortunate in being able to get "darned near" the same thrill as the real thing, and I guess I'm lucky in that respect. I've met some "purists" that don't get much joy out of anything. What a loss for them.

I'm glad that you get so much joy from the arts, as I do, no matter what the delivery system.

Bill P.

felixg · November 8, 2009

Bill P: "...I can look at a copy, print, or magazine layout of greart art and get darned near the same thrill as seeing the original in a gallery."

Fred G: "My experience is so different. I'm so amazed at what a different viewing experience it is to see the actual print or painting."

I am in Fred's camp, here. While a reproduction is often a wonderful thing, it can't begin to compare with the real thing. I'll spend hours in front of an original painting, and not have reaped afraction of what it has to offer; but a reproduction has yielded everything it has captured long before that.

In photography, or rather some photography, I come closest to Bill's view of things ... not quite there, but close. Even then ... Adams, for example, is pretty lacklustre in reproduction compared to the original. Even graphic printmaking processes (etching, litho, screenprint, for example) have a whole world of visual-plastic qualities that simply disappear in reproduction.

(I have to say that I would say the same about late sixties & early seventies rock music. Sorry, Bill!)

stephen_hipperson · November 9, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> - "Stephen, I doubt that you could find a hand printed adams for that low price of $300.00."

But you would be indifferent to ownership of either - the image is the same after all?

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred Goldsmith</a> - "The first time I saw a collection of famous Impressionists in Paris, I cried standing in front of some of those paintings."

I went to London recently, week before last actually, and visited the "National Gallery", one paiting I made a bee-line for was Van Eyck's 'The Arnolfini Marriage' 1422 - (it's the one with a concave mirror on the back wall) To be honest, I was a bit disappointed, it just didn't give me the 'buzz' I was expecting. For the most part, I dashed round the rest of the place (limited time window). As I was leaving I enterd a gallery, and there in front of me was this huge painting entitled "The Execution of Lady Jane Grey" by Paul Delaroche (I'd never heard of him or it). While I didn't cry, I was certainly moved to tears by it. I walked out of the gallery, turned and walked back again, firstly to just check that my own reaction (long day, tired, an unexpected pleasure can all have an unexpected effect. I also wanted to see what sort of reaction it was getting from the rest of the 'punters' - the place was packed, school vacation. It was indeed a magnificent and moving painting, and it moved me in a similar way. It drew the largest grouping of people in front of it. I looked at the faces of some of the viewers and indeed I could see that some were affected by the patiting as much as I was. Clearly the size of the painting was one element, but I've made it my business to review a few printed copies of the painting and they don't give me the same 'vibe'. To a certain extent using a 2-D to 2-D representation is different to a 3-D to 2-D represenation, but I'm coming to the conclusion that 'art' can only be fully appreciated if our contact with it is from an example of the artists work, done with their own hand.

I've seen a few of Goldsworthy's pieces in the UK (and tried to photograph them) -my photographs (snaps more like! ;-() are waste of space, expect as a reminder, I was there I saw that.

william l. palminteri · November 9, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2416431">Stephen Hipperson</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Nov 09, 2009; 05:36 a.m.

<a rel="nofollow" href="/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> - "Stephen, I doubt that you could find a hand printed adams for that low price of $300.00." But you would be indifferent to ownership of either - the image is the same after all?

Stephen, it would make no difference to me. I am able to appreciate a huge spectrum of experiences. Here's an example.....

I am very fortunate to be personal friends with the owner and curator of "The American Guitar Museum". I have had the pleasure of playing some guitars that connoisseurs only dream about. Here's what I can tell you.

Having played the custom made "D'" that was used in "The Godfather 1", I can tell you this. It plays about the same as any fine instrument, it sounds a bit richer than a decent Gibson, but beyond that, no difference.

If the mystique, craftsmanship, etc., means that much to the player, then pony up the money and own a musical masterpiece. But as a tool to create music, it's just another fine guitar.

Bill P.

</blockquote>

william l. palminteri · November 9, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2416431">Stephen Hipperson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Nov 09, 2009; 05:36 a.m.

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> - "Stephen, I doubt that you could find a hand printed adams for that low price of $300.00." But you would be indifferent to ownership of either - the image is the same after all?

</blockquote>

Stephen, it would make no difference to me. I am able to appreciate a huge spectrum of experiences. Here's an example.....

I am very fortunate to be personal friends with the owner and curator of "The American Guitar Museum". I have had the pleasure of playing some guitars that connoisseurs only dream about. Here's what I can tell you.

Having played the custom made D'Angelico that was used in "The Godfather 1", here's what I found. It plays about the same as any fine instrument, it sounds a bit richer (or not, depending on how you intertpet "rich") than a decent Gibson, but beyond that, no difference.

If the mystique, craftsmanship, etc., means that much to the player, then pony up the money and own a musical masterpiece. But as a tool to create music, it's just another fine guitar, the musicianship's up to you.

I might sound "jaded". I''m not. I get the same kick out of Sergio Mendes as I do from Esquerita.

Different things entirely, same rush.

Bill P.

stephen_hipperson · November 9, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a>

I understand your point but feel that you're talking about something else in your guitar analogy. The guitar is an instrument/tool - it would be like considering Adam's camera, as opposed to a finished work, in the shape of a photograph. In itself his camera would be worth than a similar camera owned by a 'nobody', that the way things are, but in pratice it couldn't deliver a photograph any better.

william l. palminteri · November 9, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2416431">Stephen Hipperson</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Nov 09, 2009; 08:06 a.m.

Response to Response to andrew goldsworthy... a sort of photographer ?

<a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> I understand your point but feel that you're talking about something else in your guitar analogy. The guitar is an instrument/tool - it would be like considering Adam's camera, as opposed to a finished work, in the shape of a photograph.

</blockquote>

Okay, let's try it this way.

I've held my great aunt's hand painted Limoges porcelains (the ones she painted) in my hands many times, and I've seen photographs of the same porcelains.

Not the same to be sure, but not enough difference to me, the art is great either way, and that's my point.

Bill P.

stephen_hipperson · November 9, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> - " but not enough difference to me, the art is great either way, and that's my point."

There we definitely differ. I'm tempted to suggest that it's equivalent to accepting a photograph of a person in place of the person, but accept that this is stretching things a little far.

william l. palminteri · November 9, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2416431">Stephen Hipperson</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"></a>, Nov 09, 2009; 09:29 a.m.

<a rel="nofollow" href="/photodb/user?user_id=2963495">William Palminteri</a> - " but not enough difference to me, the art is great either way, and that's my point." There we definitely differ. I'm tempted to suggest that it's equivalent to accepting a photograph of a person in place of the person, but accept that this is stretching things a little far.

</blockquote>

Stephen, you're right, that is stretching the point a little.

Bill P.

Sign In

andrew goldsworthy... a sort of photographer ?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in