Andres Saarnak Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 There have been a few threads about copyright and image usage. Just wanted to share this- http://priceonomics.com/the-richest-photographer-in-the-world/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 Well that was depressing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 I find it fascinating that what he does is so successful with collectors. ("collectors" as described in article being Jay-Z, Brad Pitt and other epitomes of true art appreciators) It basically gives the meaning to being *******. There really is no karma or fairness and do more shit you do, the better you will fare. This guys is perfect illustration of that. Guy seems lovely on twitter too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padre.ayuso Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Makes me want to puke! But then again, if this guy would ever sell my photos for 2m dollars, I'd be honored and know that I can then sell that one or others of mine for half the price and have that serious 3D workstation that Santa couldn't afford this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Pretty disgraceful work ethics, but at the same time props to him for making a mint out of it. How many of you in the same position would turn the money down? I can honestly say that I think I would take the money, though I like to think I'd at least pass a small amount on to the creators of the original content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 if this guy would ever sell my photos for 2m dollars, I'd be honored and know that I can then sell that one or others of mine... But you can't. I can't. The value isn't the art, it's the artist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M V Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 "Label Whores" I believe is the name for it. It's like this. You take a poop and put it on Ebay and you'll not sell it. Brad Pitt takes a dump and puts it on eBay, it will fetch millions. This guy has the 'label' and that's it. It doesn't even matter what it is, as long as it's his name, suckers with way too much cash to spend are buying it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padre.ayuso Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 How many of you in the same position would turn the money down? I can honestly say that I think I would take the money, though I like to think I'd at least pass a small amount on to the creators of the original content. I'd not do it in the first place, it is quite a gross concept what this guy/s do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveG Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 It's the "Emperors new clothes" story. If there are saps willing to pay $$$ for it then more fool them. I prefer to find depth in artwork. Unfortunately these days there's often a gulf between genuine artwork and art that sells. That's why the few artists I've know that make a living from their work always produce some work just "for them" not for sale, to keep them sane while they produce more bilge for the paying public. A bit sad really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 Prince not only added his own opaque comments under individuals’ pictures before he took screen shots, but also reported previous comments as spam, ensuring they disappeared lol The more I am reading about this topic since yesterday the more I am amused instead of angry. Literally best "art" troll ever, and doing this for 40 years straight ? Well... OK, in my not quite best understanding for contemporary art (I try each year better and better, even started reading the attached essays at Venice's Art Bienalle... still have no idea 90perc. of time...) I can see even "niche" (brutally rich) like this considered art. But funny things is he's not even really niche, reading responses to his projects it seems there's quite huge (esp. in NYC) following of people who consider it to brutally high art. “He’s a really cool artist, I like him very much”, she writes. “I feel special that an artist like him used my picture to make his project. Fascinating. I can never guess if it's pretending or do they actually really deep inside believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andres Saarnak Posted December 15, 2015 Author Share Posted December 15, 2015 "Label Whores" I believe is the name for it. It's like this. You take a poop and put it on Ebay and you'll not sell it. Brad Pitt takes a dump and puts it on eBay, it will fetch millions. This guy has the 'label' and that's it. It doesn't even matter what it is, as long as it's his name, suckers with way too much cash to spend are buying it up. He wasn´t born with a label. So somehow this no-label to label happened. I read somewhere this opinion- selling art IS art. What else to think about this, too?- http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/ Anybody could paint that, no? Fascinating. I can never guess if it's pretending or do they actually really deep inside believe it. I have thought the same about some politicians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyderSK Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) I read somewhere this opinion- selling art IS art. What else to think about this, too?- http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-pai...on-4-pictures/ Anybody could paint that, no? There is still miles difference between these but I saw it equated (even with Duchamp..). One can wonder about individual taste but most abstraction/pop-art/whatever artists sold for millions are now long-dead, including this case, and they didn't draw it with any vision of selling for millions when they created it. This one I quite like. This douchebag though, creates controversy only for the very reason of how much he knows he can sell it for. The money is the only value of his 'art'. The privacy/copyright controversy is literally secondary. He's found a goldmine and even gets respect for using it. But this whole money transfer through art auctions is still worthy topic to read through more. Such alien world for mortals. There are still worse offenders in world..for example this Martin Shkreli guy... Edited December 15, 2015 by RyderSK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notamondayfan Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 I personally found that fascinating, and didn't really know too much about appropriation art either. The point really is that he's "adding value" to the existing content, and is such creating new "art". He's not trying to pass off the photos as his own, but he interoperates and changes them to make "art". I know illustrators who make a living by re-draw photos, films, cartoons, celebrities etc, and I don't really see much difference to Prince. Drawing a photo isn't that much far off what Price does. The controversy and debate is almost the art it's self, and people want to be a part of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andres Saarnak Posted December 16, 2015 Author Share Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) I read somewhere this opinion- selling art IS art. What else to think about this, too?- http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/ Anybody could paint that, no? There is still miles difference between these but I saw it equated (even with Duchamp..). One can wonder about individual taste but most abstraction/pop-art/whatever artists sold for millions are now long-dead, including this case, and they didn't draw it with any vision of selling for millions when they created it. This one I quite like. I didn´t mean these are the same or I didn´t like any of this. What I meant was I believe there are a lot of people who could paint a similar painting or take a photo of another photo (adding twitter comment!). I´d guess there are people doing just that and not making any money. So it seems selling something anybody could make for a crazy amount of money kind of becomes "art" itself. I should mention I don´t have much clue what art really is. Sometimes it seems everything is...and then again when people call themselves 3D artist I kind of like to think art has to be something more. Edited December 16, 2015 by Andres Saarnak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Penaloza Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 This is bad, this is bad in all ways. The sad thing is people pay for this just to justify their ignorance about art and pretend to be in "that club" Just like that time ago when Drummer's of Metallica did several painting and sold all of them for a lot of money... need less to say they all where crap, but... he is the drummer of Metallica. Funny thing also is in that article the writer mentioned Steve Jobs with a quote that is actually from Pablo Picasso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Francisco, I think you might have that story a bit mixed up. Lars Ulrich sold paintings he had collected from other artists, many of them very valuable. I could be wrong, but I don't think he painted himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francisco Penaloza Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Ok then, my bad. I can sleep easy now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M V Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 This is a much better story about a REAL artist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZppXXsLUw This man is also a MASTER of masters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocratic3d Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) I was following the thread from the beginning. I found that one question is not raised yet. Who buys these art for that big amount of money? They could have feed 3000 people for an entire year in Bangladesh! well just with the price of a single paintings. !!! Edited December 20, 2015 by aristocratic3d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now