Yes, I know what his question was. Photography as he describes it is not what matters to the art world. He's making a big mistake if he thinks it does.
B > On 23 Feb 2015, at 10:32, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: > > I don't think his question was whether it was art, but whether it was > photography. Probably in much the same way was whether a collage that a > second grade makes of pictures cut from a magazine is photography. > >> On February 23, 2015 12:16:57 AM PST, Bob W-PDML <p...@web-options.com> >> wrote: >> The word is giclée and it's not made up, it's French. It means a jet of >> liquid which squirts out of something. It's also used of a burst of >> machine-gun fire. >> >> Like Lik and Vettriano and others, you seem to misunderstand >> fundamentally what matters to the art world. Rhine II is not supposed >> to be representative of what was in front of the camera. >> >> B >> >> >> >>> On 23 Feb 2015, at 02:26, P.J. Alling <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>>> 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 >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and follow the directions. >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
