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

[nomore]

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:

 

[nomore]

Sorry, I should have posted a link to the page with the info. Here it is: http://www.photonet.org.uk/index.php?id=102,330,0,0,1,0

 

[nomore]

Thanks for the link. The same shots on his site seem better

www.peterfraser.net

better compression quality maybe:

... seriously. This shot wouldn't win an OcUK competition where the theme was buckets.

 

[nomore]

This is a person who is trying to make abstract, weird art. Sometimes it works, and I've seen many and as far as I'm concerned, most are pretty worthless. However it is easy to tell that the other artists have some ability in this area. To me, the work of Peter Fraser is his very poor attempt at this type of art; he has failed misserably.

The images instill no emotion, no interest, no lasting effect and no representation. Well done to Peter for being able to con people into buying his prints. They are afterall, very poor emulations of what modern art, or whatever he wants to call it, is.

If modern art is about feelings or ideas, then can someone please tell me what the feeling or idea is that I'm supposed to get from Petet Fraser's images?

A good photograph is art. A good photograph isn't just a capture of a scene. It tells a story, invites the viewer to take a journey through the image. It must hold some interest. If it wasn't for this discussion, who here would really give more than a split second of attention to these photos from Peter Fraser?

 

[nomore]

A good photograph is art.

I've seen bad photos that is also art. At least technically bad with no thought for composition or decent lighting, yet when you add meaning it becomes art. Art is just so subjective its unreal. I know artists that use photography as a medium for their artwork but they're not photographers. If they posted the pics here for critique they could be slated. However, adding meaning creates the art as if by magic. I've learnt a lot in the past year meeting various artists and photographers. Its been a real pleasure and certainly eye opening.

You misinterpreted my sentense maybe a comma would have helped. I meant what makes a good photograph is art, not what makes art.

I'm not saying that a good photograph is art, I'm saying that an artistic photograph is a good photograph.

 

[nomore]

okay, dudes...

Whether the bucket photo is art or not isn't of consequce it seems.

So let's call it 'bad art' Subjective of course, but I'm sure most would agree that the buckets are bad.

It's not even because of the subject. It's not because of execution of style, because, to be honest, there is no unique style in the photograph. As I said earlier, I think the photographer is attempting to have a wacky style, maybe for shock value or something, but it really doesn't work on any level.

If a photographer were to get two blue buckets and produce an interesting image that actually made me want to look at it, then I would say it is more artful than the example here.

The main point of the thread really was that there are some photographers who have tremendous artistic ability to see things in a artistic and interesting way, then they put a lot of effort and applied skill into creating an amazing photograph....

...and then there is this terrible photo of a bucket which for some unjustifiable reason sells for a lot more money.

I think the reason these photos sell is because within the community of people around these things, it is fashionable to have it... it's a trend. They may not necessarily like it.

 

[nomore]

Would you be considered artist if you can design websites, creat flash content and cd-rom application with authoring tools such as flash, director, photoshop, after effects etc?

I would say it's not as black and white as that. If the website designer puts effort in to create original, not copied websites that are very well made, then it surely is a piece of art.

But you can get a website that is well made, and look good, but also looks like another 1000 websites... e.g. all the Web 2.0 sites look good, but their all almost identical.

 

[nomore]

IMO

Apple Power Mac G5 = a work of art

Dell Inspiron whatever = just a PC

Apple Powerbook = work of art

Dell XPS = just a laptop

You see, the amount of effort, attention to detail and craftsment ship that went into designing the two Apple products far exceeds those of the Dell products. They were designed artisticly. Dell just looks like every other PC.

So, the bucket photo = the most butt-ugly generic PC you can buy.