...one of Britian's most important photographers... oh please!

nomore

nomore

nomore

Associate
Joined
19 Oct 2003
Posts
1,112
Location
Olympia, WA, USA
I cannot believe this. This "photographer's" prints cost upwards of £2200 (excl. VAT)!!! This is according to The Photographer's Gallery in London.

"The focus on everyday objects, presenting them in a way that makes the familiar seem exotic"

Sheer lunacy. I really can't believe that some people, because it's fashionable, would buy such rubbish. It seems that wonderful photos that have original, interesting composition, photos that are so good that they make you want to explore the image etc. sell for much less than these from Peter Fraser:

3_888_owD0FeEsVP-324x324.jpg


3_889_4Qhh72H2Zr-324x324.jpg


3_890_xRkAOoHk7n-324x324.jpg


3_891_OOLu6DXh1t-324x324.jpg
 
Last edited:
I can feel a new pretentios career in photography looming. Now how do you go about fooling all of the people all of the time again?
 
I think it's good - if someone can make £2000 out of that then they're great sales people.

If someone's prepared to pay £2000 for them then it's a tax on the stupid and I'm all for doing that for people who don't know the value of money.
 
oh god it's all just fashion as someone said, but i have no idea how that managed to become desirable because photography in its rawest and least inspiring form is what everyone can do, bleh, trends come and go.
 
well on first look i quite like the second and third, and the thumbnails hardly give the best oppurtunity to look at them, bigger copies?
 
I've seen that first pic before. Are you sure this is a 'cool photo' as such? I'm not sure it is from a 'famous photographer' (although I could be wrong, it does happen ;)). Who is the photographer? Are they all (allegedly) from the same person? I thought the first one was a fake or of an installation or such :confused:

EDIT: I've read your post properly now and checked a link!!! :eek:

EDIT 2: I like most his other stuff on his site tho :)
 
Last edited:
These are all from a guy who is kind of at at intermediate level on the photographic ladder. ~£3K is nothing.
I like some of his stuff, not all of it, but some of it.
It's often the edgiest stuff that gets the furthest - if 99.9% of people dispise it, but 0.1% of people really love it, then you're onto a winner.
 
OK I'm rambling a bit now but ...

The first 3 pics you posted are from one series and the second is from another.

The pics in 'Two Blue Buckets' series seem to work as a series (for me) but if you take a pic on it's own, it says nothing ... but as a series ... I actually think it works.

Odd...
 
This is the line between artists and money makers. If this dude can sell that bucket for upto 3k then yes hes selling "his work" in terms of photography in relation to art. Unless your under the influence of drugs then its not art.

Art photogaphy has evolved from that now as too many people can do just about anything.

Some of his work is good but a lot of it is nothing I would pay for, nor give him credit for.
 
Fstop11 said:
Unless your under the influence of drugs then its not art.
Click to expand...

Or its not art that you like. Art is beauty in the eye of the beholder. Art is subjective, personal, sometimes impossible to define. Art is an extension of the artist. I was recently told that there is no such thing as bad art, but simply art we do not like. In recent weeks I've been called an artist and I've been called art. I think to define art is to put limits on creativity, which should never be done.

Do I like the photo shown here? No not really.
 
cyKey said:
Or its not art that you like. Art is beauty in the eye of the beholder. Art is subjective, personal, sometimes impossible to define. Art is an extension of the artist. I was recently told that there is no such thing as bad art, but simply art we do not like. In recent weeks I've been called an artist and I've been called art. I think to define art is to put limits on creativity, which should never be done.

Do I like the photo shown here? No not really.
Click to expand...
I think that's rubbish and an excuse for people who are terrible at art :o

Also I would like to point out in regards to that bucket photo and the rest in this thread, beauty is diffenately not in the eye of the beholder, but most diffenately the beer holder... :p ;)

*awaits cykey's drums*
 
nomore said:
seriously. This shot wouldn't win an OcUK competition where the theme was buckets.
Click to expand...

Whoever wins this months competition could we have buckets as a theme , the judges could mark the 'Artists' shot & we could compare our stuff to his :D
 
Colin_da_Killer said:
I think that's rubbish and an excuse for people who are terrible at art :o
Click to expand...

Yes but from their perspective and their fans perspective its good art. Its still perfectly valid artwork just you don't like it. My drums? :confused:
 
ba-dum-tish!

Those drums :p

I can see that it can be called art, and that people will buy it. It is most definitely in the eye of the beholder though. I can't see the appeal. Most of the guy's work is mediocre to bad, but there are some nice shots in terms of colour and abnormal subject matter at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom