Terry O'Neill exhibition

K_user

My wife dragged me to Kildare Village shopping outlet at the weekend.
It looked to be another day of bag carrying and tedium...

Until I noticed a advertisement for a photography exhibition.

Its free to wander in and well worth a look if you have the time.

Although a print runs at about 4,000 a pop :eek:

Fenster

That price tag seems a wee bit excessive for a sheet pulped wood fibre stained and dotted with ink.

K_user

They were impressive portraits, the man is a very good photographer, but I had to look at the price twice before I believed it!

And the funniest part was that the black frame was an extra 500

Fenster

I've looked up the artist and I can see now that he's done a fair amount of really landmark portraits. It stands testament to his long and prolific career.

However.

I personally (and you can ask anybody who knows me) have trouble valuing art. I can't look past the fact that I am dealing with materials whose base cost was in the range of cents or euros. There's a logical chain of small markups after that; the Photoshopper who upsized the images for print; the gallery's commission; the printer. And naturally there's the artists own profit to be had. But Jesus - four thousand euros. Four. Thousand. For some paper and ink. At this rate I could poop on a pedestal, call it modern art and make my millions.

Flame me.

PCPhoto

Fenster wrote: »

I've looked up the artist and I can see now that he's done a fair amount of really landmark portraits. It stands testament to his long and prolific career.

However.

I personally (and you can ask anybody who knows me) have trouble valuing art. I can't look past the fact that I am dealing with materials whose base cost was in the range of cents or euros. There's a logical chain of small markups after that; the Photoshopper who upsized the images for print; the gallery's commission; the printer. And naturally there's the artists own profit to be had. But Jesus - four thousand euros. Four. Thousand. For some paper and ink. At this rate I could poop on a pedestal, call it modern art and made my millions.

Flame me.

maybe not millions but if you can freezedry and remove the odour from that poop you might make some bit of money....lol...if you find some wierd fettish collector !!

art is subjective - and as long as there are people out there willing to part with their money then people will pay for "art"

Fenster

I can distinctly recall two television documentary shows (or parts thereof) dedicated to poop collectors. Really. One of them was showing off poop from big Hollywood stars. No I won't Google it.

EDIT: Aha! Google: Piero Manzoni.

K_user

Fenster wrote: »

I've looked up the artist and I can see now that he's done a fair amount of really landmark portraits. It stands testament to his long and prolific career.

The man has had an amazing career and I really enjoyed looking at the prints.
He has worked with everyone from The Beatles to Muhammad Ali.

In fact there were more that one that I'd like to have on my wall. For example there was one of Clint Eastwood and, being a guy, one of Brigitte Bardot.

My wife was impressed with one of Audrey Hepburn.

Had I a spare E100, which I don't, I would have considered buying one.
But 4,000? The internet is full of pictures and they are free...

Fenster wrote: »

However.

I personally (and you can ask anybody who knows me) have trouble valuing art. I can't look past the fact that I am dealing with materials whose base cost was in the range of cents or euros. There's a logical chain of small markups after that; the Photoshopper who upsized the images for print; the gallery's commission; the printer. And naturally there's the artists own profit to be had. But Jesus - four thousand euros. Four. Thousand. For some paper and ink. At this rate I could poop on a pedestal, call it modern art and make my millions.

Flame me.

For the most part I agree with you. Art, in itself, I don't get. A guy sticks two buckets together, paints them green and it gets displayed in the tate. Why?

But I do enjoy looking at good photographs. And Terry O'Neill is a very good photographer. Most of the images looked simple, uncluttered, relaxed. To an average guy they must look like a snap shot. But to anyone who has ever tried it...

K_user

Fenster wrote: »

I can distinctly recall two television documentary shows (or parts thereof) dedicated to poop collectors. Really. One of them was showing off poop from big Hollywood stars. No I won't Google it.

EDIT: Aha! Google: Piero Manzoni.

I look forward to never watching that!

stcstc

I worry about some of the comments above

I do belive us as photographers are soooooo stroppy when someone comes on here looking for something for nothing or next to.

YET

here we are moaning about the cost of someones photos.

yes ok 4K does seem like a lot, but who are we to judge this of any other photographer


oh yea and those images on the internet are generally not actually free, they are available to look at on the internet, BUT generally not available for you to make prints of as you see fit

magicbastarder

Fenster wrote: »

That price tag seems a wee bit excessive for a sheet pulped wood fibre stained and dotted with ink.

the material value of a painting is more often than not a miniscule fraction of the price you would pay for it, if you're just going to value something based on the material that you buy.

K_user

stcstc wrote: »

yes ok 4K does seem like a lot, but who are we to judge this of any other photographer

I didn't judge - in fact I said that the exhibition was well worth a look, with many prints that I, and my wife, liked.

Its just that for me E4000, plus 500 for the frame, is alot of money.

stcstc wrote: »

oh yea and those images on the internet are generally not actually free, they are available to look at on the internet, BUT generally not available for you to make prints of as you see fit

Again...I think you miss read me. Did I mention printing off the internet?
What I said was that the internet is full of free images.

And on that topic, I own 20 odd Clint Eastwood movies, I bought them legally. At no point have I made a copy, distributed, printed off or sold any of them illegally. So why would I start now with photographs?

magicbastarder

to be less flippant about it - what are you buying the picture for? be it for €4000 or €100 - if it is because the image speaks to you in such a way that you want it on your wall, the material cost is quite irrelevant.

if you want a piece of art which has limited supply - and thus a limited number of sales from which the artist can earn his crust - you have to accept that there will be a cost to it. and i can quite understand someone who takes their work seriously not wanting to go down the route of mass-market poster prints, to be sold alongside photos of lamborghini countachs and back shots of women whose breasts tantalisingly show a bit of sideage. or whatever is on posters in HMV these days.

anyway, the value of a good image is far more than just the time you're rewarding the photographer for. you're not buying ink, you're buying a particular pattern of ink.

magicbastarder

K_user wrote: »

Again...I think you miss read me. Did I mention printing off the internet?
What I said was that the internet is full of free images.

it wasn't unreasonable to reach the conclusion that you were getting at printing these images, otherwise the point is kinda moot in a thread about the cost of prints.