From: Liam Lawless (lawless@ic24.net)
Date: 09/27/00-04:38:28 AM Z
The relationship is no doubt symbiotic to some extent, but the value, or
rather the price, of a work is surely more dependent on its artistic
credentials (artist and provenance - probably more than aesthetic qualities)
than its status as art on its price? But once a piece is accorded that
status by "those who know", maybe some of "those who don't" believe the
price to reflect its artistic merit.
Aren't we all cynical?
Liam
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael F Jacobson <jacobson@juno.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: What makes photography art
> It only becomes art when it has value.
> Therefore the answer is, "Money makes photography art."
>
> Mike Jacobson
> Artcraft Chemicals
> 800-682-1730
>
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 07:20:48 -0700 Nick Makris <nick@mcn.org> writes:
> >Rod wrote:
> >
> >>that basis your experiment, though fascinating, is flawed.
> >
> >Rod, based on your lengthy respsonse, you must have had a good pot of
> >coffee. Flawed?? No, successful. After all, it did evoke your
> >meaningful
> >comments.
> >
> >Many thanks,
> >
> >Nick
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
> Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
> Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
> http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:09:00 PM Z CDT