Posted on 02/14/2006 8:28:33 PM PST by new cruelty
NEW YORK (AP) -- A photograph of a pond taken by Edward Steichen sold for more than $2.9 million, easily setting a world record for the highest-priced photograph ever auctioned, Sotheby's said.
"The Pond-Moonlight," taken on Long Island in 1904, sold on Tuesday for $2,928,000, including the buyer's premium, Sotheby's spokesman Matthew Weigman said. The buyer's identity was not immediately disclosed.
The photograph shows a pond in a wooded area with light coming through the trees and reflected in the water. Pre-sale estimates priced the photo, which is slightly bigger than 16 inches by 19 inches, at up to $1 million. The only other two prints are in museum collections.
...
Stephen Perloff, the editor of The Photograph Collector, a newsletter about the photography art market, said before the Steichen auction that it would be a "moment of history."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I agree with much of what you said. Regarding the question: Is a photograph or a movie art? I have no idea. I lost interest in the question a long time ago; what matters to me are more basic things, like how much do I get out of it, is it a wellspring or does it dry up after a number of viewings? Do I come back to it or not? If someone asks me whether a great photograph is art, I'd say, "Beats me...but it IS a DAMNED good photograph."
It's gloomy. No thanks, at any price.
No, it isn't - only to you. Ain't worth crap to 99% of the population. Doesn't make it art.
CERTAINLY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE from the original unless you know nothing about photography, particularly the more antiquated processing and printing methods.
So, I reprint them using old techniques, chemicals and processes. Big Deal. It's like saying a 59 ford isn't like a 2006 prius. No kidding. But, you can still make a 59 ford that is indistinguishable from an original. And, unless you used extreme scientific methods, I'm sure a duplicate could be made that could not be differentiated with the naked eye.
welcome to a free market.
I have no trouble with the free market. There happen to be MANY idiots in the free market. I think this guy is one of them. It just so happens that there seem to be more of them in the art world - paying exorbitant amounts for crap that and 10 year old with Downs syndrome could create - and calling it "edgy".
Out of curiosity, what IS your definition of art? Contrary to opinion, the handwringing about what is and is not art, often has no bearing on those who buy it or make it. Moreover, the photography market would continue to exist and thrive even if that nebulous word or concept vanished into thin air. Good question. I spent an entire year in philosophy in college debating THAT question. And, for the most part, art is "whatever you say it is". I hand make jewelry for a living. I design a piece and make it from scratch. I do NOT consider myself an artist. Many folks call me that. I am a "craftsman" - a very skilled craftsman - but just a craftsman - not an artist. And I consider what I do to be 10x more creative than MOST photography. But, it ain't art....
And, I have no problem with photography. I have at least 60 photos hanging on display in my house. Most are of family, friends and activities - including my MArlboro photo contest winning "Wonder Falls" photo. But some are photos I've taken that others would say are quite impressive and could be considered "art". They're not. They are pictures of places I've been and seen. Nothing more, nothing less.
LOL -- thanks.
Too many people think all photography is like digital VIDEOGRAPHY. Point and shoot and push to print.
There are a number of artists working today who design the concept of the works but lets other people actually do the sculpting and/or mechanical tooling.
Does the sculptor have to pour the bronze himself to be the artist? Or is it not art at all since there are several castings made from one mold?
There's some great work out there, and there are some legit photographers making excellent money. The thing about being dead is that the work now becomes a "complete set", and no more are going to be reproduced. When Norman Rockwell died, he had some limited edition signed lithographs on display at a local gallery. They went from $500 to $2,000 on the day he died, and have continued to increase in price since then. This was in 1978, I believe. I've always regretted that the prior week, I had looked at the lithographs, and was trying to put together the cash to buy one of "Shuffleton's Barber Shop", one of my favorite of his paintings. After he died, it was way out of my range. Comparing in 1978 dollars, I had bought a Ford F150 for $3800 new that year.
PS: I agree
I thought her fingers looked a bit long myself. I'm surprised you noticed that also. Maybe it's just the camera angle.
Remington bronze's = Remington's bronzes
Just goes to prove that some people have more money than brains.
What is the story in that photo?
Sure, you can manipulate light, angles, exposures, filters....but I still think it is craft. Sure, 20 photographers will capture 20 different images. All you have is 20 different photos....not 2 works of art, 3 near works, 13 photos and 2 thumbs over the lens. As I said in another post. I make jewelry - from scratch - and I don't consider myself an artist. Does the sculptor have to pour the bronze. No, but he had to create the original. And, no, the "art" involved was in making the original. All of the others are "copies of art" - done using craft. And, as for designing and letting others do the sculpting or tooling. I would posit that if someone else can make what you had in mind...then it probably wasn't "Art" to begin with....it's probably just "assembling a product".
Why doesn't it?
I never said "it would be easy" to make a reproduction - just like it wouldn't be easy to build a 59 chevy from scratch - but it can be done so that it is virtually indistinguishable - by an extremely skilled craftsman.
No chip on this shoulder. Couldn't care less about who spends money where. My whole point is that I don't consider 99% of photography "art" (certainly not any "natural" photo). ANd, re-read your posts - I detect WAAAY more anger in them than in mine!!!
I have seen well planned, maintained awe-inspiring, moving, and beautiful gardens - but they are not art.
I have seen incredible awe-inspiring, beautiful feats occur in sports games - not art.
NOTHING has ever moved me more than seeing the Grand Canyon - still not art.
For me, art must come from within. Sure, you can be inspired by external forces....but taking a picture of it - I don't care how much attention was given to lighting, camera angle, f-stops - it's still just a picture.
Also, don't get me wrong. I have NOTHING but respect for photographers. As I said, I make jewelry. And, to sell it, it all must be photographed. A good friend from my youth is a very good professional photographer and he does all of our layouts. He makes my jewelry look better than it does in person. He's amazing. The few times I've been there during the shoot, it drove me nuts. I can't STAND all of the tiny little adjustments, lighting, blah, blah,blah - I want to shoot myself in the head before the first photo is taken. So, I have great praise for photographers as they all do something I cannot stand to do. I think it is beautiful. I just don't think that most of it is art. (Sorry weegee - but, as I said, if it makes you feel any better, I think the same of me - though people routinely call me "An artist" - I ain't).
Photography is an underappreciated art because 30 years ago it was not looked upon as such by the Establishment.
The currator at the Houston Museum of Fine Art started collecting works back then. Today they have thousands of pieces and are among the top collections.
There was an individual who around the same time set out to collect works by every major photographer. I think that he purchased each photographer's most famous piece as well as his favorite piece. That collection is now owned by the MFAH (for $32million).
Among the photos in the collection are the first print ever made from the Iwo Jima flag raising (a contact print made by the man who developed the film).
If photography is not art then neither is much of the historical works in most museums. Those sculptures were not designed as an end-product to be admired as "art" they were columns that served function, graves to carry the deceased into the afterlife, religious "tools", etc.
Art is in the mind of the creator and the eye of the beholder. If the artist is a failed artist, he's still an artist. If his work does not find an audience until after he's dead, he's still a successful artist. If I like a work for the wrong reasons, it doesn't matter in the end. The appreciation (and display) makes it art.
The problem that I find these days is too many knock off artists "painting" a copy of sports photos and selling them through galleries and sport card shows.
Some photographers have sued the painters for violating their copyright.
Much of the art is of the splashy LeRoy Neiman style.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.