Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:23:50 -0700
Response below --
From: jewelia <jewelia@erols.com>
To: Gary Miller <gmphotos@earthlink.net>; Alternative Photo Group
<alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 1999 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: $$$$ how to price prints
> the thread on pricing is becoming something else?:
>
> i'm not really picking on ya' gary--you're not the only one--yours is a
> common popular photography sentiment.
>
> but, the price difference between say--a Gary Miller print? and say Edward
> Weston's of Pt. Lobos--is not so simple as a matter of money or print
> quality--there is history--Artists help make a history--Weston contributed
> to the development of a school of thought--it's past now--really, i'm sure
> you've heard--culture changes with time---his work is considered
> symbolically important of that era of work--has become what R.S. called
> iconographic -- artisans just make prints--reenactors reperform the
> past--history is cultural and straight photography was an expression of
> modernism that fit into "what was happenin' socially at the time" --i
don't
> mean like social drinking just at the parties-- artists make art and you
can
> call them unique for that--but that doesn't deny the overwhelming
> similarities that artists share with other persons darlin'--making art for
> sale or exhibition is hardly an exercise in individualism. what you call
> "hype" is what a lot of others call good or great--all these descriptors
are
> just subjective adjectives for the same thing--Taste, well Kant, I'm sorry
> to say--never turned out to be universal. So, today, the enlightenment
gets
> a Great Swirlee! and culture marches on to -- well nowhere probably --
but
> who can stand still?
>
> what you call illogical, economists have called rational choice for
> decades--before postmodernism--that the choice to pay $47 million may not
> make sense to you but that's not relevant to its valuation. you ain't
even
> in the game if you ain't got no checkers on the board. the problem is
that
> you call your tastes logical....????? and theirs something else....i just
> don't see much point in what you say there...unless of course--you live on
> Mount Olympus???
>
> just to add a little to what R.S. posted about icons--or referred us back
> to--i read his essay on his site that he referred us to and don't recall
> off-hand where he mentioned icons: to have your work BECOME
> iconographic--well, i think that means it is taken to be very
important--who
> wouldn't want to achieve that---else why show or sell or bicker on a list
> with such emotion (as ususal) --it is the reproduction of icons that i
think
> he means to diminish--maybe i'm readin' ya wrong here richard? but icons
> demand to be autoreproduced and that they are--in popular culture over and
> over and over-- those decorator prints, and we could toss in popular or
> "common" collectors -- as opposed to collectors who are in the game---so
in
> galleries we have this tension between popular now and popular
tomorrow--the
> past and future presently in the galleries here at the same time--trying
to
> make something new?--which we understand to be really impossible--but
there
> is a conversation taking place--i don't mean the one on the list--you may
> not understand her work--but Cindy Sherman's--just to give an example--has
> been taken to be important for the same fundamental reason as Weston's
> was--i'd guess--that's why $24 million was paid, i think this was the
> amount, for about 24 prints of hers for the LA museum -- that weren't
> exactly presumed to be archival--as say platinum prints??
>
> Don't figure??? sure it does, if you want to understand...of course its
not
> a matter of physics my dear--its a matter of culture...and culture has
> always exhibited chaotic patterns--which doesn't mean there its not
> rational--just difficult for us to understand its determinism--as in
> reality.
>
> love for now--enjoy...
>
> jewelia Margueritta Cameroon
> performing a set of decompositons
>
While reselling a mini-series (AD) that was 'Ava Gardner's last film, James
Mason's last among others' swan songs, and both written & Directed by a
Roman scholar; it was broadcast opposite the NBA playoffs, but world wide
and made tons on overseas sales. In fact, it was sold in 22 of the global
22 territories as accuratly described as 'the last days of Christ and the
debacle of the Holy Roman Empire that followed through five Ceazars.' The
resale was instigated to finalize a management take-over of the compnay.
One entertainment lawyer listened to the pitch and said: "Hungf! Sounds
like just a 'cause celeb' to me."
I believe he is currently doing Real Estate contracts law.
Some of these comments resound like kids, chosen photography because it's
easy art.
When asked to calculate the cost of materials and the response is 'the value
of a couple drops of platinum' or the silver gelatin paper is sixty cents;
this discounts the value of expertise to mix the platinum or used paper i.e.
value of a whole box. The value of materials is worth calculating, I mean:
What do you think about before, and after making the picture?
A former friend invented a robotics tool and met with the banker who was
admittedly licensing his invention. He said, "I want a million, billion,
jillion dollars."
He had registered 28 original patent claims and proved two new laws of
physics; and today he wanders the streets of San Francisco living in
abandoned cars.
S. Shapiro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:38