Oh, no I'm not saying that. I can't remember where I read this but
there was an on line article about Rhine II showing the original scene.
There wasn't just one ugly factory removed by Photoshopery, but the
entire horizon of ugly factories was removed. When I say heavily
Photoshopped I mean it, when that much retouching is involved, you're no
longer working with a photograph per se, but some other kind of digital
artwork. I've removed entire tourists from images I've shown, the
difference being that I didn't fundamentally change the actual scene,
just a movable element that moved into frame that I didn't notice. The
only way the scene that Rhine II is supposed to represent, could exist,
would be with judicious applications of high explosives and heavy
machinery to remove the debris.
Gileec is a made up word to give inkjet images the imprimatur of an Art
technique as calling them inkjet images simply confuses the rubes or is
it the other way around...
I remember the first time I was asked if one of my exhibited images was
a Giléec*, at the time I didn't honestly know...
*Strangely the first e is supposed to have an acute accent over it but
the Windows Character Map utility doesn't seem to have that character I
had to steal it from Wikapedia and it may not display properly on other
peoples systems...
On 2/22/2015 7:59 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
Not that I disagree with the bulk of your sentiments here -- I said
much the same to my wife at dinner about admiring the guy's marketing
skills -- but you appear to be stating that "photographs" effectively
cease to exist once chemicals and negatives are out of the loop. An
idea I vehemently disagree with.
DSLRs, software and inkjet prints are all part of the new photograpy
and thus produce photographs.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 6:52 PM, P.J. Alling <[email protected]> wrote:
The quote from the London Gallery owner is pretty telling, not so much about
Lik, but certianly about the Art photography marked. Let's see, Rhine II,
wasn't exactly a photograph, it was a heavily Photoshopped inkjet, (Oh, I'm
sorry, perhaps I should have used the word Gilcee instead of inkjet), print.
Yet I'll bet that gallery owner didn't blink an eye when it sold for $1.3
million. From what I've seen of Lik's work it doesn't require eye bleach,
(such as Thomas Kinkade's did). It just seems that he's found a way to
legally separate money from rich people with more money than brains without
needing a middle man. More power to him I say.
On 2/22/2015 4:39 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
So is Lik's work resellable for a lot of money? Apparently, not so much.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/business/peter-liks-recipe-for-success-sell-prints-print-money.html
--
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.
--
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.
