« on: Today at 09:44:48 PM »
The difference is that one is an abundant, naturally-occurring mineral that's been made rare by unethical (ahem!) means, and the other is rare because the creator of the work chooses limited distribution. Copyright vs. cartel. One is legitimate, the other is not.
Legitimate it is. So why are people criticizing him for making his work artificially rare? He makes his prints in editions of 995, which is not especially rare, and yet he gets criticized for this. The art world has a long history of limited editions, in prints, photography, etc. Most paintings exist as singles. Artificial scarcity is the name of the game. Otherwise Ansel Adams would have been knocking out millions of Moonrises, and Van Gogh would have painted a fresh copy of Starry Night every morning and another every afternoon.
I don't think that was the primary criticism: most of the criticism appears to be directed at his habit of concocting fables about himself and his work. The unbelievably high trumpeted sales price on the one print, and the outright lies about the origins of the one moon photo are laughable. Stunts like these not only call his integrity into question, but risk side-effects for ethical photographers.