Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AC016" data-source="post: 389173" data-attributes="member: 9619"><p>Well, if you know anything about Jonathan Jones, you should know that he is a provocative journalist.&nbsp; Keep that in mind when you read the article.&nbsp; I am not sure how rich his background is in photography (i'm thinking it's closing in on zippo, zilch, nada, zero...) or how knowledgeable he is about the world of art (i think he most likely knows quite a bit), but his article is simply pointing out that most anyone can take this photo and that people have.&nbsp; Though, i think he is missing the point.&nbsp; The point being this:&nbsp; if someone has a butt load of money and wants to spend it on something they like, who are we to say anything?&nbsp; Who are we to define what &quot;valuable&quot; should mean to another person?&nbsp; On the other hand, i do somewhat see his point that if a photo that can be taken by anyone becomes expensive fine art photography, then where is the world of fine art photography heading.&nbsp; If not Lik's photo, why not someone else's photo of the same scene? I guess the simple answer to that is, which would you rather have hang on a wall? A Peter Lik photograph? Or Uncle Ed's photo?&nbsp; Let's understand that the people who spend 6.5 million dollars on a photograph, DO NOT come from the same milieu as we do; therefore, perhaps we won't be able to understand their rationale behind spending an insane amount of money on a photo.&nbsp; In short, i really don't think there is a debate here.&nbsp; In a couple of years, there will be another photo sold for more money and we will all once again, be left scratching our heads.&nbsp; I say, who cares! There are far more important matters in the world to concern ourselves about.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="AC016, post: 389173, member: 9619"] Well, if you know anything about Jonathan Jones, you should know that he is a provocative journalist. Keep that in mind when you read the article. I am not sure how rich his background is in photography (i'm thinking it's closing in on zippo, zilch, nada, zero...) or how knowledgeable he is about the world of art (i think he most likely knows quite a bit), but his article is simply pointing out that most anyone can take this photo and that people have. Though, i think he is missing the point. The point being this: if someone has a butt load of money and wants to spend it on something they like, who are we to say anything? Who are we to define what "valuable" should mean to another person? On the other hand, i do somewhat see his point that if a photo that can be taken by anyone becomes expensive fine art photography, then where is the world of fine art photography heading. If not Lik's photo, why not someone else's photo of the same scene? I guess the simple answer to that is, which would you rather have hang on a wall? A Peter Lik photograph? Or Uncle Ed's photo? Let's understand that the people who spend 6.5 million dollars on a photograph, DO NOT come from the same milieu as we do; therefore, perhaps we won't be able to understand their rationale behind spending an insane amount of money on a photo. In short, i really don't think there is a debate here. In a couple of years, there will be another photo sold for more money and we will all once again, be left scratching our heads. I say, who cares! There are far more important matters in the world to concern ourselves about. [/QUOTE]

Verification