July 31, 2014, 04:45:59 PM

Author Topic: Value of photographs without negatives?  (Read 2860 times)

IMG_0001

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • Amateur photon abductor
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2014, 02:52:29 PM »
Like anything else, scarcity is your friend.

...


In this respect, I believe film photography has an advantage. Original prints form the darkroom processes were more likely to be unique than inkjet prints.
What a mess, my camera's sensor is full of massless particules that keep on trying to behave like waves!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2014, 02:52:29 PM »

Grumbaki

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2014, 02:03:32 AM »
when you are an italian artist you even can sell your canned sh*t.

a very tiny bit exaggerated ... funny nevertheless  ;D


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

Holy sh!t! :o ... I originally thought you were kidding ... can't believe a freaking moron selling sh!t cans and the bigger morons who actually bought them and finally ending up with a museum paying DKK 250,000 settlement to the collector. :o ... that is some "stinking" rich business.


If you can't see the conumdrum he created and the statement it is towards art marketization, yeah this is just a pile of S___. But if you do you can appreciate the gesture, the irony and the proto punk idea. Much of this evaporated since a few cans started leaking, revealing the content (indeed true to his word).
37$ a piece, 90 boxes that's 3300$ minus expenses. Even at 1961 value, he didn't get rich with that.

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3321
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2014, 02:33:13 AM »
when you are an italian artist you even can sell your canned sh*t.

a very tiny bit exaggerated ... funny nevertheless  ;D


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

Holy sh!t! :o ... I originally thought you were kidding ... can't believe a freaking moron selling sh!t cans and the bigger morons who actually bought them and finally ending up with a museum paying DKK 250,000 settlement to the collector. :o ... that is some "stinking" rich business.


If you can't see the conumdrum he created and the statement it is towards art marketization, yeah this is just a pile of S___. But if you do you can appreciate the gesture, the irony and the proto punk idea. Much of this evaporated since a few cans started leaking, revealing the content (indeed true to his word).
37$ a piece, 90 boxes that's 3300$ minus expenses. Even at 1961 value, he didn't get rich with that.

Regardless of the "conundrum", I cannot "appreciate the gesture", coz it is not worthy of appreciation ... no matter how much we abhor "marketization", it is "marketization" that lets us afford the comforts of our lives, I guess the sh!t can seller did not realize that ... image if everyone felt the same way and started sh!tting all over the place ... if he felt that way in 1961, what would he do in 2014? fill barrel full of sh!t and try to sell it off as art to make a point ... disgusting! We don not need weirdos like that, nor do they deserve our appreciation. 
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

Grumbaki

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2014, 03:15:27 AM »
disgusting! We don not need weirdos like that, nor do they deserve our appreciation.

Interesting points. but would you accept that, without drawing a parallel in aesthetic values, I point that this comment would apply to the Vitruvian man from Da Vinci that was the result of his foundness for human dissection (huge taboo at the time)?

Maybe you'd be less reluctant toward "this weirdos" work on temporality of art and the pointlessness of the art market with his work that led to Merda d'artista, Fiato d'artista (breath of artist) that were just innofensive balloons he blew but that, by nature, would be self destructing soon.

And any comment about this derivation of the Neitzchean concept of humans being works of art themselves?

I'm not trying to take the high road here, I'm just questioning the immediate rejection as a whole under the simple principle that this is indeed S___.

After all, may work of photography can also be considered as obsene, weird and/or worthless under those standards.

PS: the point about everyone doing it everywhere is hilarious because that's actually the only think that would have prevented this to happen, rendering the "art" indeed worthless as supply would surpass demand  ;D

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3321
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2014, 04:13:46 AM »
disgusting! We don not need weirdos like that, nor do they deserve our appreciation.

Interesting points. but would you accept that, without drawing a parallel in aesthetic values, I point that this comment would apply to the Vitruvian man from Da Vinci that was the result of his foundness for human dissection (huge taboo at the time)?

Maybe you'd be less reluctant toward "this weirdos" work on temporality of art and the pointlessness of the art market with his work that led to Merda d'artista, Fiato d'artista (breath of artist) that were just innofensive balloons he blew but that, by nature, would be self destructing soon.

And any comment about this derivation of the Neitzchean concept of humans being works of art themselves?

I'm not trying to take the high road here, I'm just questioning the immediate rejection as a whole under the simple principle that this is indeed S___.

After all, may work of photography can also be considered as obsene, weird and/or worthless under those standards.

PS: the point about everyone doing it everywhere is hilarious because that's actually the only think that would have prevented this to happen, rendering the "art" indeed worthless as supply would surpass demand  ;D
Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man is a master piece and it required artistic skill ... just because Da Vinci was "fond" of human dissection, he did not chop a few pieces of, carefully measured, human flesh and packaged them in tin cans and pass it off as art. Seriously, what artistic skill does one require to measure 30gms of human waste and put it in a tin can? My issue is not with sh!t, if he had created something artistic with his sh!t, I would have appreciated it ... in India cow dung is used to create incense sticks that are artistically presented (refer to the images below) they also make cow dung "cakes" that are not only used for fuel, sometimes they take great pride in presenting them in unique ways. Women in Rwanda make very beautiful art work with cow dung (called Imigongo), that is marketed for the welfare of their small scale industry (refer to the images below) ... now that is art, which is both aesthetically pleasing and useful and it deserves our appreciation, respect and support ... but not for some guy filling cans with his sh!t - that's just plain disgusting, no matter what he is trying to prove. If he was trying to prove a point about marketization, to me he only comes across as a bitter and negative man who had no other artistic means of expression to prove his point, instead chose a very cheap, low life, crude & disgusting approach.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 04:29:03 AM by Rienzphotoz »
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

Grumbaki

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2014, 07:05:53 AM »
Sorry for the other readers for hijacking the thread but a debate about art is relevant on a photo forum. (that's my best excuse).

Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man is a master piece and it required artistic skill ...
So artistic skill can only be a manual skill (drawing, sculpting...) and not the ability to conceive a work of art? Even if so, what is the threshold of "quality"? Is Basquiat an artist?

Quote
Imigongo
I see plenty of reapeated patterns in your pics. Wich would qualify more as artisanship than art as in traditionnal sense. Monnet painting is art. Monnet copying one of his work is craftmanship. Even you qualify it as an industry.

Quote
chose a very cheap, low life, crude & disgusting approach.
[/quote]
Which is why part of modern art is called Shock art. Punk is still music. very cheap, low life, crude & disgusting approach can be necessary to pass on a message.

Actually the message should please you. Institutional art buyers would litteraly buy sh*t if it comes from some famous artist. You actually agree with him.

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3321
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2014, 09:58:28 AM »
So artistic skill can only be a manual skill (drawing, sculpting...) and not the ability to conceive a work of art?
No I do not think "artistic skill can only be a manual skill (drawing, sculpting...)" ... but good luck to anyone who thinks, sh!tting in a can is some kind of an "ability to conceive a work of art". ::)
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2014, 09:58:28 AM »

Logan

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2014, 10:41:50 AM »
Some people would say that taking a picture of something that already exists is clearly not art. At least he pooped in the cans, the photographer just reproduces it with one less dimension.

You can twist that argument against anything that someone considers art. Not sure what the conclusion is, but making an arbitrary distinction about shitting in a can VS painting a picture of the can or photographing it seems to be on shaky ground.

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3321
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2014, 11:59:21 AM »
Some people would say that taking a picture of something that already exists is clearly not art. At least he pooped in the cans, the photographer just reproduces it with one less dimension.

You can twist that argument against anything that someone considers art. Not sure what the conclusion is, but making an arbitrary distinction about shitting in a can VS painting a picture of the can or photographing it seems to be on shaky ground.
I am no expert on art (especially the kind where sh!t cans are involved) , but I can hold a picture or a photograph of a can and appreciate the way it was portrayed/composed, but I have absolutely no inclination whatsoever to hold some guy's sh!t can and appreciate its texture or odor and proudly display it as a work of art, coz for me that is disgusting :o ... But, if someone insists that a sh!t can is art and enjoys getting their lungs filled with the smell of some random guy's oozing excreta or likes the feel of its texture, I am happy to say, they won, I lost ... coz I'd rather be on shaky ground than on stinky ground. ;) :P
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

Logan

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2014, 09:14:27 PM »
Some people would say that taking a picture of something that already exists is clearly not art. At least he pooped in the cans, the photographer just reproduces it with one less dimension.

You can twist that argument against anything that someone considers art. Not sure what the conclusion is, but making an arbitrary distinction about shitting in a can VS painting a picture of the can or photographing it seems to be on shaky ground.
I am no expert on art (especially the kind where sh!t cans are involved) , but I can hold a picture or a photograph of a can and appreciate the way it was portrayed/composed, but I have absolutely no inclination whatsoever to hold some guy's sh!t can and appreciate its texture or odor and proudly display it as a work of art, coz for me that is disgusting :o ... But, if someone insists that a sh!t can is art and enjoys getting their lungs filled with the smell of some random guy's oozing excreta or likes the feel of its texture, I am happy to say, they won, I lost ... coz I'd rather be on shaky ground than on stinky ground. ;) :P

you dont have to like something to appreciate its value. all you are saying is you dont like poo. I don't like ballet but my personal feelings don't really have any bearing on its value as art. Methinks you just want to talk about poo, not art ;)

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8281
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2014, 02:27:35 AM »


Back in 1859 there was a solar flare from the sun which was so big and catastrophic that it destroyed most of the world's power stations.
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2011/03/110302-solar-flares-sun-storms-earth-danger-carrington-event-science/

 
 
 
 
Since there were no power stations in 1859, that wouldn't have been hard.  Most of the power stations were built late in the 1800's.  Telegraph systems used batteries, and high voltages were generated on the telegraph lines which could cause electrical shocks, arcs, and even fires. 
 
The USA secretly hardened the telephone system during the cold war, when they learned what EMP could do, so the phone system was protected. 
 
Our power system is very susceptible to such a event, and needs a major redesign, but it won't happen until it costs a trillion or two in damage.  Even so, those DVD's won't disappear because of a sun flare.  Early CD's were very unreliable, they are far better now, I had some lose their data in the late 1980's and early 1990's.  I still have data from the 2nd generation of CD's.
Magnetic media, like floppy disks does degrade, and many of my 198X Floppies are no longer readable.
 
There is little doubt that optical storage is more reliable than magnetic, and compressing data is not as reliable.
However, many movie films are no longer in existence because they used acetate film substrate which disintegrates long before 100 years.  Early technology is always less reliable until it matures.  Solid state storage is pretty new, and is certainly subject to degrading.  A cosmic ray might cause the loss of one of those billions of memory cells.  Scratches affect film in a similar way, but its more serious.
 
I would expect that at some point, if data were to be archived on solid state devices like memory chips, then redundant memory structure would be used, its certainly doable, there are patents and applications, but its not yet out there for CD or CF cards.
 Meanwhile, my first digital photos from the 1990's are still around while my Polaroid prints from the 1960's and 1970's are toast, Its sad, they have faded away.  Even my color print film and color prints from the 1950's are no longer usable.  Black and white and Kodachrome slides are just fine.   Polaroid deserves to go bankrupt!

Rienzphotoz

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3321
  • Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
    • View Profile
Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2014, 02:35:28 AM »
Some people would say that taking a picture of something that already exists is clearly not art. At least he pooped in the cans, the photographer just reproduces it with one less dimension.

You can twist that argument against anything that someone considers art. Not sure what the conclusion is, but making an arbitrary distinction about shitting in a can VS painting a picture of the can or photographing it seems to be on shaky ground.
I am no expert on art (especially the kind where sh!t cans are involved) , but I can hold a picture or a photograph of a can and appreciate the way it was portrayed/composed, but I have absolutely no inclination whatsoever to hold some guy's sh!t can and appreciate its texture or odor and proudly display it as a work of art, coz for me that is disgusting :o ... But, if someone insists that a sh!t can is art and enjoys getting their lungs filled with the smell of some random guy's oozing excreta or likes the feel of its texture, I am happy to say, they won, I lost ... coz I'd rather be on shaky ground than on stinky ground. ;) :P

you dont have to like something to appreciate its value. all you are saying is you dont like poo. I don't like ballet but my personal feelings don't really have any bearing on its value as art. Methinks you just want to talk about poo, not art ;)
That's funny, coz you are the one who's been rooting for sh!t in a can as some kind of an art form, hey but who am I to argue with you if you think sh!tting in a can is art or if you have "feelings" for that sort of thing ... so, you win!  ::) Enjoy your art, Good bye.
Canon 5DMK3 70D | Nikon D610 | Sony a7 a6000 | RX100M3 | 16-35/2.8LII | 70-200/2.8LISII | 100/2.8LIS | 100-400LIS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.8 | 600EX-RTx2 | ST-E3-RT | 24/3.5 T-S | 10-18/4 OSS 16-50 | 24-70/4OSS | 55/1.8 | 55-210 OSS | 70-200/4 OSS | 28-300VR | HVL-F43M | GoPro Black 3+ & DJI Phantom

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Value of photographs without negatives?
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2014, 02:35:28 AM »