The Online Photographer

"Critic Jones is a "wind-up merchant":

Mainly UK, especially south-east England. (v) To use information (true or fictional) to provoke, tease or deceive."

Well it may be merchants in the uncultured SE of England but I believe the phrase in the rest of the country is "Wind-up artist" :-)

The photo in question is certainly no Weston or Adams, I'm almost tempted to agree with Mr Jones' last paragraph.

My god what Gall... I actually laughed out loud when I read this particular line:

"It is derivative, sentimental in its studied romanticism, and consequently in very poor taste. "

Nope... no subjectivity there. No siree.. That there is pure scientific universally agreed upon objectivity. He says so so it's now a certified fact... so shut up ya buncha ingnant simpleton billionaire art collectors.

Reading Jones's comments gives me a physically repulsed reaction. Like mild nausea. Forget about a straw man. There is barely a sentence in his piece that is not an invitation to a fight. What a waste of time.

Sorry, Mike: I don't mean a waste of time to link to it. It is good to have the discussion about the discussion -- something that you accomplish elegantly here. No, the waste is diving into the morass of opinion and non-logic that is Lik's piece and trying to engage with it like a serious person. Put him on a soapbox at Hyde Park corner and let him run.

This was interesting. He spends so much time dwelling on the absurdity of a Peter Lik photograph selling for $6.5 million that it's easy to nod along as he rants. But you're obviously right in your conclusion; his logic fails as there is no connection between his argument and his thesis.

As for Peter Lik, he produces some great eye candy, but for the most part, his success appears dependent on him being a far better marketer than his peers. (Maybe another reason I reacted against that street photographer whose marketing I found more style than substance). This is the stuff of coffee table books, calendars and posters, and perfectly reasonable fine art prints in homes and doctors offices and businesses.

If this critic wants to attach photography as art, it seems he'd be better off addressing the thorny issue of artificially limited edition (or single edition) prints. That's been hashed to death as well, but at least it's a little more controversial.

All it "proves" is that idiots with too much money have found another way to prove they're idiots with too much money.

What people really mean when they say, "Photography isn't art," is that photography lacks some sort of mystical value that is present in, say, painting. What this mystical value consists of is hard to define. Apparently it is there in a kitsch piece by Thomas Kincade, but not in a Paul Caponigro print. Well, there's no accounting for taste.

Is this man on a mission, or what?
It’s all too easy to deride those who claim photography is an art–and the evolution of photography isn’t really helping their case, what with all those selfies and silly pictures that people post by the thousands everyday on facebook. The debate about photography being an art form is thus a sterile one.
That’s not entirely fair, though. Photography may not be an art form, yet there’s no denying many photographers have an artistic approach to it. I don’t even have to cite the big names, do I? Whether what they do can be called ‘art’ depends by and large on the photographer’s intention. If they meant to make art, then it's art.
Even if you accept photography is not art–and I’m not entirely convinced of that–, at least there’s still room for artistic photographs.

He makes me laugh a bit, his obnoxious dismissal of all photography as art, especially digital, and I'm not sure if Phantom is digital or not. I don't care for the photo either for some of the same reasons. I actually like your dog photo with the ball better, at least at web size. Perhaps though, one characteristic of the digital age is that is is both easier to create art and easier to dismiss it.

He needs to show us his own take on the matter, or shut up.

Jones is not only a wind-up merchant, he is a click-bait merchant. Not worth wasting ire, wrath or anger on. Be imperiously amused, I say!

I'm in wholehearted agreement with your take on Mr. Jones's goofy anti-photography screed(s).

But for different reasons, I share his dyspepsia at the news of this sale and the taste of the buyer. I saw my first slot canyon picture 25 years ago, and I've seen about 10 billion since then (as with cockroaches, you can't ever really get rid of them) and every one looks the same. It gets my vote as the most stultifying cliche in photography.

I'd rather see your cell phone snapshots of yesterday's sunset and Mister Muffins the Cat any day.

Ignoring the click hunter at the centre of your piece, I have to say that slot canyons join those trees (Deadvlei) and that town (Kolmanskop) in Namibia that require a photographic moratorium (shall we say 40 years?). This also goes for pictures of beautiful young women magically falling through the air in a dark Bavarian forest; photographs of heavily tattooed people in dark but beautifully lit interiors; HDR pictures of the lined faces of street drinkers and homeless people; and long-exposure photographs of piers at dusk surrounded by milky-white smooth water - jail time is required for anyone taking this last photograph.

Wind-up, whatever . . .

My perspective is that if I want to voice my opinion re whatever, I automatically inherit a responsibility to respect others' opinions. I do not need to agree with them, but I'm obligated to respect them.

Sincerest regards, JR

... and talking of trains, though this is not a passenger service ... a train arrived in Madrid today from China: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/10/silk-railway-freight-train-from-china-pulls-into-madrid

A term I find pretentious is "fine art photography." I sometimes call myself a "coarse art photographer" just to be silly.
Jerry Kircus

Jones has clearly lost the plot - using first the Taylor Wessing show and now this as "proof" that photography cannot be art. All the more entertaining when we read the piece that Tim links to above.

But putting Jones to one side and looking at the story of the photo - I just don't believe it for a second:

1. A non-verifiable sale through the lawyer of an "anonymous collector". It is not an auction sale, it is a direct sale from the photographer.

2. The "facts" of the story seem to only exist in a press release from the photographer's PR agency.

3. This photographer is self-proclaimed as "the world's most influential fine art photographer... one of the most important artists of the 21st century."

I mean c'mon purlease. I am like OMG. No way. Totally. Shut the front door. L-O-L.

R

If all else fails, use money.

He does have a point - but he manages to do it in such a way as to make himself appear a complete a*se (or a** for our American friends).

Photography is no more an art than painting or sculpture. All three of these mediums can be used to create art - or for other, more utilitarian purposes.

Granted, the linked article comes across as a provocative, one dimensional rant. But, it poses an important question: Is pointing one's camera at a beautiful scene sufficient to create "fine art photography"? Given the flood of repetitive photographs of slot canyons, glowing aspens, icelandic landscapes (insert cliche of choice here), this question shouldn't be dismissed easily. In my opinion, this was also Mr. Jones' beef with his last essay about the wildlife photography exhibition (also dicussed here, don't have the link at hand) - that technical prowess with state-of-the-art DSLRs and access to exotic scenery replace individual artistic expression. Given the thoughtful audience on this blog (which in large parts consists of accomplished artists!), I would have valued a more thorough discussion of the core statements of the linked essay.

Generally, such discussions can easily be terminated by looking at the flip position. If photography isn't art, what is it? The most common response when I ask that is "reality." But it isn't reality. At the very best case, it's someone's interpretation of reality, and that's being generous.

If you're going to say something isn't X, you need to also tell us what it is (e.g. define Y).

I wandered into one of his galleries, this one on Maui. The pieces were big, glossy, saturated, expensive and OK to very good. The most influential landscape photographer? I think not. There's this piece published in The Age which calls the whole thing into question: http://tinyurl.com/op3bcl6