The art world has come loose from it's moorings, anyone can produce art,
yet no one produces good art and the really execrable stuff sells for
millions. Sometime the excretions aren't even real.
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/artblog/2007/jun/12/shitmanzonisworkdoesntdow
or maybe they are, since no one is willing to ruin the "value" of the
work by opening one.
I think it's wonderful that photography is is seen as an actual art,
except that I'm not sure that any other art qualifies as art either.
On 12/12/2014 12:47 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
The only requirement for a million dollar photo is a million dollar sucker.
On December 11, 2014 8:15:59 PM PST, Ann Sanfedele <[email protected]> wrote:
Ken - many of yours are much,much better
That antelope canyon shot is the one I meant - grossly oversaturated on
my monitor.. if you thought I meant the one with reflections, that's
different - though still not a million dollar shot.
ann
On 12/11/2014 21:12, Ken Waller wrote:
Obviously the 6.5 mil is obscene. I'd be proud to call the color
image mine.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Sanfedele <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: OT - Peter Lik has a better camera than anyone else ...
So I guess the worse photos are the more he gets for them?
Toss up which is more awful - the 6.5 or the color Antelope canyon
shot.
well after all, this did happen in Las Vegas so...
ann
On 12/10/2014 16:20, Bruce Walker wrote:
... and sells a photo for a historical 6.5 million dollars as a
result.
https://fstoppers.com/landscapes/what-65-million-dollar-photograph-looks-49113
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
