The ridiculous price of some work.
Gregory W. Blank
Some photographers price thier work too low, maybe myself
included,....but I really wonder when see an unknown photographers work
priced at 3K for a "color" print not a cibachrome. Epsecially when the
print is nothing particularly unique...I gues whatever the market will bear.
--
"ANFAWFOS"
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
John Emmons
corner of the gallery...?
John Emmons
"Gregory W. Blank" <Who...@hear-who.net> wrote in message
news:oXM0b.15241$_P1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Gregory W. Blank
quite possible the photographer in question is strickly amature who is guessing
how much the print is "worth".
The piece was in the main gallery adjacent to my large piece
they are of about the same size around 24 x 30 mine was framed
theirs was flush mounted with dinged edges on foamboard, mine was
archival off white matted and under glass & BW. I priced mine at
a conservative $475 considering how much the print cost me to produce
framed etc. I think what bothers me most is it is so not worth 3K
I could see a contacted 24x30 Silver print depending on the subject,
maybe even a ciba from 35mm or any format but not a strick "C"
print comming from a no name photographer, it has not sold as of yet.
Maybe I should go back and change my price to 10K ;-)
Then again there where quite a few paintings of the same caliber,
of questionable nature for several hundreds or thousands of dollars....
.of which a few really qualified for the price, by that I mean they exhibited a refinement
of skill. John, I paint and can draw just about anything I only wonder
where these people come from and who actually would spend that kind of
money for someone of my renown much less people who "I" have never heard and I know
quite a few, good photographers.
It is interesting that the jurior chose two wood carvings as the
1st and second place winners. Grand total out of 175 to 200 pieces
there were about 15 photographs most of which were not for sale.
In article
<nUN0b.106586$3o3.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"John Emmons" <joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Was anyone buying it or was it sitting abandoned and alone in the darkest
> corner of the gallery...?
> John Emmons
--
Jean-David Beyer
> To give a little more info it was a local "arts" council members show
> quite possible the photographer in question is strickly amature who
> is guessing how much the print is "worth".
>
mean Andy Warhol. One item was a printed circuit card, with parts on it,
spray painted DaGlo orange. Asking price was $1,000,000. Pretty amazing.
I assume the perpetrator did not wish to sell. I would not have taken it
for free.
You may wonder, but you never know.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 3:20pm up 29 days, 20:11, 2 users, load average: 2.17, 2.12, 2.07
Hank Seidel
> I went to a gallery once, where all crap was on exhibit, and I do not
> mean Andy Warhol. One item was a printed circuit card, with parts on it,
> spray painted DaGlo orange. Asking price was $1,000,000. Pretty amazing.
Perhaps the artist (perpetrator?) considered the pricing part of his or her
artisitc effort and wanted both to be equally ridiculous.
Cathy
costs for me to step outside the house with the camera. They say
"Jeesh! I can get a family portrait at Wal-Mart for $9.95." I tell
them go ahead.
Cathy
Harold Clark
It is amazing what "glob art" sells for sometimes. A few years ago the
National Gallery in Ottawa paid something like 2 million for a panel
consisting of a white stripe in the center bordered by a red stripe on
each side, something any school kid with a paint roller could knock
off in 20 minutes. There was a huge outcry across the country of
course, as the hapless bureaucrats in charge had obviously been duped
by a slick sales pitch. At the same time we have high priced trash,
fewer people are willing to pay a decent price for good work.
I recently visited my insurance agent, an obviously successful
businessman. On the wall was a group of hideous portraits of the
employees. Sears? I asked. "Walmart" was the reply. (even Sears
couldn't be that bad.) I have no idea why he would even want his
customers to see this, but I guess it was dirt cheap which
unfortunately seems to be the main criteria these days.
Harold Clark
Francis A. Miniter
Harold Clark wrote:
>Cathy <Cat...@nobody.home> wrote in message news:<3F4439B2...@nobody.home>...
>
>
>>When folks ask "How much do you charge?", I tell them the amount it
>>costs for me to step outside the house with the camera. They say
>>"Jeesh! I can get a family portrait at Wal-Mart for $9.95." I tell
>>them go ahead.
>>
>>
>>
>>Cathy
>>
>>Gregory W. Blank wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some photographers price thier work too low, maybe myself
>>>included,....but I really wonder when see an unknown photographers work
>>>priced at 3K for a "color" print not a cibachrome. Epsecially when the
>>>print is nothing particularly unique...I gues whatever the market will bear.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>It is amazing what "glob art" sells for sometimes. A few years ago the
>National Gallery in Ottawa paid something like 2 million for a panel
>consisting of a white stripe in the center bordered by a red stripe on
>each side, something any school kid with a paint roller could knock
>off in 20 minutes.
>
But didn't. Was it a Rothko? And as to the "could" - see the long
comment below.
>There was a huge outcry across the country of
>course, as the hapless bureaucrats in charge had obviously been duped
>by a slick sales pitch. At the same time we have high priced trash,
>fewer people are willing to pay a decent price for good work.
>
Maybe. Maybe not. Too little information.
>
>I recently visited my insurance agent, an obviously successful
>businessman. On the wall was a group of hideous portraits of the
>employees. Sears? I asked. "Walmart" was the reply. (even Sears
>couldn't be that bad.) I have no idea why he would even want his
>customers to see this, but I guess it was dirt cheap which
>unfortunately seems to be the main criteria these days.
>
That's what happens when the school kid makes the image rather than an
experienced and creative artist.
Art arises from vision and selection and technical skill. The
red-and-white striped painting ? The same three elements apply. Many
times a person will go into a gallery or museum and say "I could have
done that." To that I reply, "But sir or madame, you did not. You have
not taken the time to conceive the idea, to select the specific elements
of this against other possible elements. You did not acquire the
materials necessary to create it. You did not learn about oil paints
vs. acrylic paints vs. water paints, or color theory, or kinds of
brushes or rollers (if you wish) or their materials, shapes,
thicknesses, or what substrate to use for the painting (canvas, silk,
etc., thin wove, thick wove, etc) or whatever other technical knowledge
was needed to make this come out the way it is. And while this
particular work of art may not 'speak to you', it may speak loudly to
many others. Assume it is a Rothko and that the price is, therefore,
commercially reasonable. I guarantee you that if you go home and create
something similar to this, no one is going to pay you $2,000,000 for
it. For that matter, I would challenge you to duplicate it, and believe
that unless you are experienced in the art form, you won't even be able
to do that."
To take the thread back to photography, a lot of people have tried to
duplicate Adams' photos. They will never be Adams' pictures, though,
and the originality of the ideas will always be his.
Francis A. Miniter
>
>Harold Clark
>
>
Gregory W. Blank
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >Cathy <Cat...@nobody.home> wrote in message news:<3F4439B2...@nobody.home>...
> >>When folks ask "How much do you charge?", I tell them the amount it
> >>costs for me to step outside the house with the camera. They say
> >>"Jeesh! I can get a family portrait at Wal-Mart for $9.95." I tell
> >>them go ahead.
> >>Cathy
> >>Gregory W. Blank wrote:
> >>>Some photographers price thier work too low, maybe myself
> >>>included,....but I really wonder when see an unknown photographers work
> >>>priced at 3K for a "color" print not a cibachrome. Epsecially when the
> >>>print is nothing particularly unique...I gues whatever the market will bear.
> Harold Clark wrote:
> >It is amazing what "glob art" sells for sometimes. A few years ago the
> >National Gallery in Ottawa paid something like 2 million for a panel
> >consisting of a white stripe in the center bordered by a red stripe on
> >each side, something any school kid with a paint roller could knock
> >off in 20 minutes.
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> But didn't. Was it a Rothko? And as to the "could" - see the long
> comment below.
> Harold Clark wrote:
>There was a huge outcry across the country of
> >course, as the hapless bureaucrats in charge had obviously been duped
> >by a slick sales pitch. At the same time we have high priced trash,
> >fewer people are willing to pay a decent price for good work.
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Maybe. Maybe not. Too little information.
> Harold Clark wrote:
> >I recently visited my insurance agent, an obviously successful
> >businessman. On the wall was a group of hideous portraits of the
> >employees. Sears? I asked. "Walmart" was the reply. (even Sears
> >couldn't be that bad.) I have no idea why he would even want his
> >customers to see this, but I guess it was dirt cheap which
> >unfortunately seems to be the main criteria these days.
> >
> That's what happens when the school kid makes the image rather than an
> experienced and creative artist.
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Art arises from vision and selection and technical skill. The
> red-and-white striped painting ? The same three elements apply. Many
> times a person will go into a gallery or museum and say "I could have
> done that." To that I reply, "But sir or madame, you did not. You have
> not taken the time to conceive the idea, to select the specific elements
> of this against other possible elements. You did not acquire the
> materials necessary to create it. You did not learn about oil paints
> vs. acrylic paints vs. water paints, or color theory, or kinds of
> brushes or rollers (if you wish) or their materials, shapes,
> thicknesses, or what substrate to use for the painting (canvas, silk,
> etc., thin wove, thick wove, etc) or whatever other technical knowledge
> was needed to make this come out the way it is. And while this
> particular work of art may not 'speak to you', it may speak loudly to
> many others. Assume it is a Rothko and that the price is, therefore,
> commercially reasonable. I guarantee you that if you go home and create
> something similar to this, no one is going to pay you $2,000,000 for
> it. For that matter, I would challenge you to duplicate it, and believe
> that unless you are experienced in the art form, you won't even be able
> to do that."
>
> To take the thread back to photography, a lot of people have tried to
> duplicate Adams' photos. They will never be Adams' pictures, though,
> and the originality of the ideas will always be his.
> Francis A. Miniter
True every artist of note has a definate finger print that they impart
to thier work, that however does not qualify it as good, or bad.
For that matter worth what one is willing to ask. In reality if someone
is willing to pay the price thats all that matters regardless whether
the piece fades, of falls apart tommorrow. Its thier name on the piece
and they will have to deal with any consequences that come from it, but
personally I would rather sell ten prints at 500 verses 1 at 3k
if that artist has to wait for someone to like the work enough to
pay 3k for it and feel that the artist is asking a fair price.
You never know though maybe the piece is up there for one specific
person to see and buy it,....it won't be me however, and I can still have a good
laugh about it until it does sell ;-)
GP
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3f450...@news3.prserv.net...
> Comments interleaved.
>
> >It is amazing what "glob art" sells for sometimes. A few years ago the
> >National Gallery in Ottawa paid something like 2 million for a panel
> >consisting of a white stripe in the center bordered by a red stripe on
> >each side, something any school kid with a paint roller could knock
> >off in 20 minutes.
> >
> But didn't. Was it a Rothko? And as to the "could" - see the long
> comment below.
The name of the piece is Voices of Fire, the artist Barnett Newman and it is
a red stripe flanked by 2 blue ones, the banner looking piece is about 18
feet long and 6 or 7 feet wide, I actually drove to Ottawa to see with my
own eyes what my tax dollars were buying!! IMO, about the only redeeming
value of that "piece of art" is that made many pay a visit to the gallery,
it made me visit the gallery sooner than I expected. My appreciation of
that piece is almost at par with 2 other master pieces I saw at the Art
Gallery of Ontario, the first consisted of a supermarket shopping cart
placed on a raised platform and all sort of garbage piled up on top of the
cart. The other one, a lot more cleaner, consisted in a room painted of a
single color and a string of a different color going from one of the lower
corners of the room to the opposite upper corner of it.
Guillermo
Jean-David Beyer
Curious. I find Barnett Newman's work quite interesting. A little too
large for the living room of my little Cape Cod style house, though. So
I content myself with photographic prints by A.Adams, E.Weston,
E.Rubinstein, J.Dater, L.Krims, and some of my own.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 2:55pm up 24 min, 2 users, load average: 1.31, 0.91, 0.52
GP
"Jean-David Beyer" <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:3F451706...@exit109.com...
>
> Curious. I find Barnett Newman's work quite interesting. A little too
> large for the living room of my little Cape Cod style house, though.
Here is the piece in question, in case you want to remodel your house to
make it fit!
http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/search/artwork_zoom_e.jsp?mkey=35828
Guillermo
Gregory W. Blank
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Curious. I find Barnett Newman's work quite interesting. A little too
> large for the living room of my little Cape Cod style house, though. So
> I content myself with photographic prints by A.Adams, E.Weston,
> E.Rubinstein, J.Dater, L.Krims, and some of my own.
I am not particularly fond of installation art in general, to each their own of course
what I do like however are photographers who build "installations, sets
etc, and then photograph them.......its a better use of space especially
in expensive gallery locations "imhop" of course. I do love functional
Art in general, stuff that serves a duel purpose,...there are alot of really
cool artisians "welders,etc" here in Baltimore that make great furniture and sculptured
furnishings.
Jim Waggener
> make it fit!
>
> http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/search/artwork_zoom_e.jsp?mkey=35828
>
> Guillermo
I think I'd rather have the photograph of the man looking at the painting,
rather than the painting itself.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Jeff Novick
I might add that there is a difference between the creative process and how
much it is worth. The worth of things is a complex process affected by
elements other than the creative process. Some of these elements could fall
into the category of brainwashing and hype. But, if enough people agree,
then a price is established.
In this case, the photographer whose print is offered at $3000 either has a
day job and doesn't care if it sells, will only sell it for that price or
none at all, has sold something for a similar price, is terribly
misinformed, has a real sense of humor, or, had bad advice!
Jeff Novick
"Jim Waggener" <ji...@visi.net> wrote in message
news:3f452a5d$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Here is the piece in question, in case you want to remodel your house to
> > make it fit!
> >
> >
http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/search/artwork_zoom_e.jsp?mkey=35828
> >
> > Guillermo
>
> I think I'd rather have the photograph of the man looking at the painting,
> rather than the painting itself.
>
painting!
David Boyce
see it.
This sort of thread always reminds me of the people who used to think
van Gough was rubbish, unimaginative people often have problems with
'modern' art in my experiance.
"GP" <g...@gp.com> wrote in message news:<vZ81b.260161$rsJ.1...@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
GP
"David Boyce" <li...@globe.net.nz> wrote in message
news:14fa85c8.03082...@posting.google.com...
> Hard to tell from a photo
It is a banner of 3 SOLID color stripes, no texture -that I remember- other
than the one of the canvas itself.
> This sort of thread always reminds me of the people who used to think
> van Gough was rubbish,
That excuse is used over and over. I am pretty sure there were many
contemporaneous painters to Van Gough whose art was considered "rubbish"
also and the fact that -perhaps- not even art history mentions them now is
an indication that their art was probably "rubbish" in fact.
> unimaginative people often have problems with
> 'modern' art in my experiance.
If you are right, there are over 25 million unimaginative Canadian citizens
living in this land.
I don't think that people's imagination is what should qualify a paint as
good art, but rather that -in this case, a close to $2M paint- should bring
OUT the imagination of even unimaginative people, like, well...me and 25+
million more.
BTW, I hope I am wrong and that in 30 years that Voice of Fire is worth 20
million. After all I also contributed to buy it with my tax dollars!
Guillermo
Terry D. Spade
I think he said the reason for the high price was so their work would be
returned back to them. I'll have to ask him about it next he's in town.
Terry
"Gregory W. Blank" <Who...@hear-who.net> wrote in message
news:veO0b.40$n6...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
Gregory W. Blank
You don't have to,.... M.C. Escher "that's modern art.
Dutch artist (b 1898-d 1972)
Good modern art is crafted as opposed to spattered.
Although Jackson Pollack did it first so it was unique for
the world and so can "imop" be classified as art,
everyone after him is a copy cat. Picasso, their was true talent
"imop" he really could paint and draw and create in multiple
media. Then again I wouldn't buy if I could afford alot of his stuff.
Some of it I like.
If work is crafted well, I can appreciate some pretty
unusal stuff, would I pay 3K for something I could do
on a bad day,...hardly, but not everyone can draw and paint
and base thier opinion on that criteria. But I can.
In article <14fa85c8.03082...@posting.google.com>,
li...@globe.net.nz (David Boyce) wrote:
> Hard to tell from a photo but it looks interesting, i would love to
> see it.
>
> This sort of thread always reminds me of the people who used to think
> van Gough was rubbish, unimaginative people often have problems with
> 'modern' art in my experiance.
--
Stacey
>> Here is the piece in question, in case you want to remodel your house to
>> make it fit!
>>
>>
http://cybermuse.gallery.ca/cybermuse/search/artwork_zoom_e.jsp?mkey=35828
>>
>> Guillermo
>
> I think I'd rather have the photograph of the man looking at the painting,
> rather than the painting itself.
>
I was thinking the same thing. Looks like he is thinking "WTF is this thing
hanging here...."
--
Stacey
David Boyce
> "David Boyce" <li...@darkslide.globe.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:14fa85c8.03082...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Hard to tell from a photo
>
> It is a banner of 3 SOLID color stripes, no texture -that I remember- other
> than the one of the canvas itself.
Sounds very meditative to me, anyway, what defines 'art'anyway. Its
personal opinion, taste, education, social presure.
>
> > This sort of thread always reminds me of the people who used to think
> > van Gough was rubbish,
>
> That excuse is used over and over. I am pretty sure there were many
> contemporaneous painters to Van Gough whose art was considered "rubbish"
> also and the fact that -perhaps- not even art history mentions them now is
> an indication that their art was probably "rubbish" in fact.
doesn't make it irrelavant
>
> > unimaginative people often have problems with
> > 'modern' art in my experiance.
>
> If you are right, there are over 25 million unimaginative Canadian citizens
> living in this land.
well, most Canadians I have met are very intellegent, imaginative
people, but I haven't met them all
>
> I don't think that people's imagination is what should qualify a paint as
> good art, but rather that -in this case, a close to $2M paint- should bring
> OUT the imagination of even unimaginative people, like, well...me and 25+
> million more.
>
> BTW, I hope I am wrong and that in 30 years that Voice of Fire is worth 20
> million. After all I also contributed to buy it with my tax dollars!
I get annoyed with wasted tax dollars as well, but I tend to stick
with being annoyed with the multi multi million dollar mistakes that
governments make, and hey, I promise not to sell any of my photographs
to Canadian galleries without your permmision
David (remove darkslide to reply)
>
> Guillermo
sympatic
> they are of about the same size around 24 x 30 mine was framed
> theirs was flush mounted with dinged edges on foamboard, mine was
> archival off white matted and under glass & BW. I priced mine at
> a conservative $475 considering how much the print cost me to produce
> framed etc. I think what bothers me most is it is so not worth 3K
> I could see a contacted 24x30 Silver print depending on the subject,
> maybe even a ciba from 35mm or any format but not a strick "C"
> print comming from a no name photographer, it has not sold as of yet.
> Maybe I should go back and change my price to 10K ;-)
No one really gives two hoots what the print is made of or how it was made.
Many of the "best selling photographers" today sell "C" prints. Let's start
at say $250,000
And as a Canadian I'm glad we have the Newman piece. There are plenty of
Canadians who aren't of the mother-in-law school of art apprecitciation -
"I know what I like and I like what I know" and "why can't they paint a
horse to look like a horse?"
If people don't have any imagination - well, they can just go and phtogrpahs
sunsets, rocks , trees and watefuls and Point Lobos... :-)
BTW - my last C print sold was for $3,700 and I was quite happy to charge
that much!
tim
sympatic
If people don't have any imagination - well, they can just go and phtogrph
sunsets, rocks , trees and waterfalls and Point Lobos... :-)
Judd Georges
any form) is insulting to the hard work and disciplined creativity of hard
working artists of all formats.
"David Boyce" <li...@globe.net.nz> wrote in message
BCE
waterfalls at Point Lobos please let us know where they are. : - )
--
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
"sympatic" <t...@KairosPhoto.com> wrote in message
news:Ddi1b.859$PJ2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Struan Gray
> And as a Canadian I'm glad we have the Newman piece. There are plenty of
> Canadians who aren't of the mother-in-law school of art apprecitciation -
> "I know what I like and I like what I know" and "why can't they paint a
> horse to look like a horse?"
With an artist with as big a name as Newman, national galleries and
other prestige-driven institutions can also play the education card.
He's such a vital link in the chain of art history that you need to have
one on your walls, if only so that people can confirm their predudices.
I have learnt a lot about composition from artists like Newman and
Rothko. Nicholas de Stael's landscapes are a current fad for me.
They reduce visual perception to its most simple building blocks, which
makes it easier for me to analyse my reaction and use that analysis to
improve my photography. More complex paintings or photos distract with
content or texture, and are less effective learning tools. I'm not sure
the prices are sane, despite being set by 'the market', but I wish the
galleries and museums near me had a better selection or their work.
Struan
Gregory W. Blank
"sympatic" <t...@KairosPhoto.com> wrote:
> No one really gives two hoots what the print is made of or how it was made.
> Many of the "best selling photographers" today sell "C" prints. Let's start
> at say $250,000
Like I stated in my previous post unless the piece falls apart or fades.
Then the artist will having his name on it will and should have to deal
with it.
Gregory W. Blank
Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was thinking the same thing. Looks like he is thinking "WTF is this thing
> hanging here...."
Its a 2 million dollar racing stripe, that any good auto painting
company could and does do regularly for what $300. Think about all the homeless
people that 2 million could have helped ;-)
GP
"David Boyce" <li...@globe.net.nz> wrote in message
news:14fa85c8.03082...@posting.google.com...
> >
>
> Sounds very meditative to me,
If you meditate long enough on it -hopefully- it will evoke you "the passion
of Christ", this is what Newman said it represents.
> > That excuse is used over and over. I am pretty sure there were many
> > contemporaneous painters to Van Gough whose art was considered "rubbish"
> > also and the fact that -perhaps- not even art history mentions them now
is
> > an indication that their art was probably "rubbish" in fact.
>
> doesn't make it irrelavant
No it doesn't make irrelevant, to those educated enough, at least.
> well, most Canadians I have met are very intellegent, imaginative
> people, but I haven't met them all
Sure there are many intelligent people here, that's why I only counted 25
million, I left over 5 million out of the count as the potential educated,
imaginative ones.
> I get annoyed with wasted tax dollars as well, but I tend to stick
> with being annoyed with the multi multi million dollar mistakes that
> governments make, and hey, I promise not to sell any of my photographs
> to Canadian galleries without your permmision
I don't think Provincial and federal Galleries consider photography "real"
art yet, I have visited some with the express purpose of seeing photographs
and I have been disappointed at the number being exhibited, so, altho you
have my permission, don't hold your breath waiting for them to purchase one.
:-)
Guillermo
Harold Clark
> What utter bullshit. Trying to avoid passing off three stripes as "art" (in
> any form) is insulting to the hard work and disciplined creativity of hard
> working artists of all formats.
>
>
it. However there has to be some standard of craftsmanship and
originality of thought to make it viable. The first person in history
who painted 3 stripes on a board (or the wall of a cave) probably had
an original idea. I would admire someone with the skill even to
duplicate a painting by one of the old masters, because it would
require a talented hand with the brush. Painting stripes on a board
requires not much artistic ability, I think. Much of the outrage at
the time the National Gallery bought this was due to the fact that
they spent over half their annual budget to acquire it. We also have
to consider that there is a lot of hype and marketing in the art
world. Some artist's true talent lies in their ability to promote
themselves. Value is often related to long standing reputation as
well. When Ansel Adams was a young man, he sold prints for $10.
Because his reputation grew over his lifetime, his prints now sell for
vast sums. Likewise there are photographers now who produce excellent
work but who may never enjoy recognition. The most important factor in
one's success is often to be dead for a few decades or centuries.
Harold Clark
Howard Lester
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/herman/index.html
D.K.Gibson
> themselves. Value is often related to long standing reputation as
> well. When Ansel Adams was a young man, he sold prints for $10.
> Because his reputation grew over his lifetime, his prints now sell for
> vast sums. Likewise there are photographers now who produce excellent
> work but who may never enjoy recognition. The most important factor in
> one's success is often to be dead for a few decades or centuries.
One has to smile at Ansel Adams being considered an artist of any lasting
merit. An interesting photographer who developed a number of technical
systems - perhaps. A very good craftsman - maybe. I don't think he had an
original bone in his body. He merely took the ideas of the whole "Hudson
River/Cathedral Grove" school of painting - Bierstadt, Cole, Church etc, and
turned them into photographs, applying his technical (but not artistic)
virtuosity to them. A style that had long been left behind in the world of
painting.
A square foot of Pollock or even Barnett Newman has more originality than
several hundred linear feet of Adam's El Cap or Sierra this that or the
other.
Gregory W. Blank
"D.K.Gibson" <ruba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> One has to smile at Ansel Adams being considered an artist of any lasting
> merit.
One could say that same thing with regard to what you "think".
What contribution to the world do you make beyond snide commentary.
>An interesting photographer who developed a number of technical
> systems - perhaps. A very good craftsman - maybe. I don't think he had an
> original bone in his body. He merely took the ideas of the whole "Hudson
> River/Cathedral Grove" school of painting - Bierstadt, Cole, Church etc, and
> turned them into photographs, applying his technical (but not artistic)
> virtuosity to them. A style that had long been left behind in the world of
> painting.
There are still alot of people (artists) that do any number of styles.
But at least some of them exhibit talent beyond paint splatters
or lets put this way "copying the paint splatters of others.
> A square foot of Pollock or even Barnett Newman has more originality than
> several hundred linear feet of Adam's El Cap or Sierra this that or the
> other.
Everyone has there own tastes however:
You really should state this is all just your opinion, as that is all it is.
Ansel photographed the subjects he did for his own reasons and benefits
to others. Who are you or anyone else to claim he or anyone else is not an artist.
Let's look at each individual piece and decide its merits shall we?
Verses condemning the body of work. No I am not a great Ansel fan, I like
alot but not all of his stuff, I would not claim he was not an Artist.
Cathy
John Emmons
John Emmons
"D.K.Gibson" <ruba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(snipped the nonsensical parts and we're left with this...)
Jeff Novick
to my knowledge. He did make some lovely images, don't you agreee?
Howard Lester
"Jeff Novick" wrote > I don't think Ansel Adams ever thought of himself
as an artist, at least not
> to my knowledge. He did make some lovely images, don't you agreee?
Lovely, inspiring, and breathtaking. And, I've learned a lot about
photography from reading his books.
Howard Lester
BCE
thought of himself as an artist (and rightfully so). A good place to gain
some basic knowledge about Adams is Mary Alinder's biography. It was
controversial because of some of the love affair stuff but otherwise it's
considered factually accurate and is well regarded."Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:63w1b.4258$sS5...@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
GP
> merit.
>
> several hundred linear feet of Adam's El Cap or Sierra this that or the
> other.
I am happy to smile at Ansel Adams....while Newman laugh at you!
Guillermo
Jeff Novick
"BCE" <bell...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:V%w1b.1111$O03...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Ansel Adams thought of photography as an art form and very definitely
> thought of himself as an artist (and rightfully so). A good place to gain
> some basic knowledge about Adams is Mary Alinder's biography. It was
> controversial because of some of the love affair stuff but otherwise it's
> considered factually accurate and is well regarded.
> --
may be minute compared to some of the posters here, I never got the feeling
he was thinking of himself that way. Perhaps if you could point me to a
quote of his, where he talks about himself as an artist, I could believe
otherwise. No matter how he thought of himself, I still enjoy his work, just
like I enjoy Barnett Newman and many of the Abstract Expressionists.
BCE
saying "I have been trained with the dominating thought of art as something
almost religious in quality. I existed only for the quality of art in
relation to itself. . . . " Or "Ansel was now a leading artist in the United
States, and he took his new position seriously . . . His statement for the
show explained that these images (referring to his photographs exhibited by
Steiglitz at An American Place) had been created from the meetingof the
world's outer reality with the unique personal reality of the artist" from
the Alinder book. Or the first sentence in "The Print" by Adams:
"Photography is more than a medium for communication of reality, it is a
creative art." Hopefully those will do, I found them in a couple minutes of
looking and don't have the time or inclination to search for any more.
Images and Photography Information www.ellisgalleries.com
"Jeff Novick" <jhno...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:Jky1b.4296$0P6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
Stacey
> In article <bi45hn$4lj8a$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I was thinking the same thing. Looks like he is thinking "WTF is this
>> thing hanging here...."
>
> Its a 2 million dollar racing stripe, that any good auto painting
> company could and does do regularly for what $300. Think about all the
> homeless people that 2 million could have helped ;-)
>
Or how many =real= pieces of artwork they could have bought?
--
Stacey
D.K.Gibson
"John Emmons" <joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:l6v1b.109464$3o3.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> back under the bridge you go...
My apologies - I was under the impression that this whole thread was for
opinionated trolls?
Jeff Novick
artist. Too bad. I would have loved him even more!
"BCE" <bell...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:J%y1b.1684$O03...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jim Waggener
> merit. An interesting photographer who developed a number of technical
> systems - perhaps. A very good craftsman - maybe. I don't think he had an
> original bone in his body. He merely took the ideas of the whole "Hudson
> River/Cathedral Grove" school of painting - Bierstadt, Cole, Church etc,
and
> turned them into photographs, applying his technical (but not artistic)
> virtuosity to them. A style that had long been left behind in the world of
> painting.
>
> A square foot of Pollock or even Barnett Newman has more originality than
> several hundred linear feet of Adam's El Cap or Sierra this that or the
> other.
Isn't it funny that whenever a museum assembles a collection of Hudson River
artists or Bierstadt, Cole, Church etc. or any of the great landscape
painters of the 19th century, the public response is overwhelmingly positive
draws huge crowds. Why do you think that's so? Maybe its because current
"styles" in art have no appeal to the majority of people viewing them. There
is always going to be the minority who think otherwise.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Cathy
>>He merely took the ideas of the whole "Hudson
>>River/Cathedral Grove" school of painting - Bierstadt, Cole, Church etc,
>
> and
>
>>turned them into photographs, applying his technical (but not artistic)
>>virtuosity to them. A style that had long been left behind in the world of
>>painting.
Many explorers of photographers in that time and from before and after
routinely 'copied' the compositions of known masters in painting,
drawing and sculpture. Stiegltiz's city-scapes and Picasso's cubism
comes to mind.
"Oh my, I love your photographs. They look like old paintings."
Cathy
John
>"Jeesh! I can get a family portrait at Wal-Mart for $9.95." I tell
>them go ahead.
They make such wonderful pitchers don;t they ?
Regards,
John - Photographer & Webmaster - http://www.darkroompro.com
A summation of American society after 9/11:
Never have so many known so much and yet done so little.
J Stafford
Blank" <Who...@hear-who.net> wrote:
> Good modern art is crafted as opposed to spattered.
> Although Jackson Pollack did it first so it was unique for
> the world and so can "imop" be classified as art,
Hold on. Pollock (proper spelling) did more than just splatter paint.
There was a method and outcome that was far from a random 'splatter'.
Should I elaborate or would you like to do some research yourself first?
J Stafford
li...@globe.net.nz (David Boyce) wrote:
> Sounds very meditative to me, anyway, what defines 'art'anyway. Its
> personal opinion, taste, education, social presure.
Nope. Depends upon the realm, the scope of the discourse, but 'Art' is
largely defined by historians, sometimes by consumers, rarely by the
critic, and when defined only by the viewer it means nothing.
J Stafford
<JuddAG...@aol.com> wrote:
> What utter bullshit. Trying to avoid passing off three stripes as "art" (in
> any form) is insulting to the hard work and disciplined creativity of hard
> working artists of all formats.
That's a joke, right?
J Stafford
<Who...@hear-who.net> wrote:
> Its a 2 million dollar racing stripe, that any good auto painting
> company could and does do regularly for what $300.
Hah! Auto painters are THE most over paid 'craftsmen' in the country,
unless they work at those $99 shops.
> Think about all the homeless
> people that 2 million could have helped ;-)
If any photographer wants to make a difference to the homeless, he would
be more successful selling his gear and giving the money to the needy.
Cathy
J Stafford
ash...@eagle.ca (Harold Clark) wrote:
> Art is subjective [... snip ...]
As you have described the situation, _everything_ is subjective, of pure
relativism, therefore worthless.
Cathy
111
so minimal
Cathy
We are all poor photograhers. We are the needy.
J Stafford
> He did it with alachol and jazz.
He wasn't drinking at the time.
Cathy
J Stafford
> Success in selling his gear? HUH?
>
> We are all poor photograhers. We are the needy.
I stand by what I said - if you want to make a difference to the poor,
then instead of making them subjects of your impotent photography, sell
your gear and give them the money. If you were as motivated as you wish
your viewers to be, you would already be too broke to afford hardware.
J Stafford
> He drank all the time.
You are incorrect, and a fool.
Welcome to my killfile.
Cathy
Make them a subject of my photography... self portraits?
Jeff Novick
"J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-26080...@m-0-236.docsis.hbci.com...
You are joking, right?
Gregory W. Blank
jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
> In article <cng1b.22432$kK4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, "Gregory W.
> Blank" <Who...@hear-who.net> wrote:
>
> > Good modern art is crafted as opposed to spattered.
> > Although Jackson Pollack did it first so it was unique for
> > the world and so can "imop" be classified as art,
>
> Hold on. Pollock (proper spelling) did more than just splatter paint.
I never stated otherwise, the followers John, the "followers"
Besides he technically "did" splatter paint. Regardless
of the methodology of his doing so. Is it not perhaps the methodology
that is the craft , of which I spoke in the first line of your quote?
--
"ANFAWFOS"
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
J Stafford
<Who...@hear-who.net> wrote:
> I never stated otherwise, the followers John, the "followers"
> Besides he technically "did" splatter paint. Regardless
> of the methodology of his doing so. Is it not perhaps the methodology
> that is the craft , of which I spoke in the first line of your quote?
Hi, Greg. Pollock didn't splatter paint so much as drip it in arcs -
swinging his arm in certain patterns, cooperating with gravity, sometimes
a pendulum motion. But I don't mean to quibble so much. We are probbly in
some kind of agreement.
Jon
> Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 05:19:24 GMT
> Subject: Re: The ridiculous price of some work.
Of course he isn't joking. Disagree and you get the kill file. Whoopee! I
predict that in six or seven months, Stafford's newsreader will show his
posts only. He having killfiled everyone on usenet... :)
Jon
Jon
> From: jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford)
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:22:30 -0500
> Subject: Re: The ridiculous price of some work.
>
Would you have said the same thing to Dorothea Lange after the Dust Bowl?
Jon
Gregory W. Blank
jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford) wrote:
> We are probbly in
> some kind of agreement.
Spelling issues aside, possiumlly sew :-D
konabear
That makes it a Giclee, right? ;) Always wondered where the name came from!
RE: another thread that states real art can only comprehended in real life.
That brings us back to on topic to large format photography. It's hard to
comprehend the detail recorded in a 4x5 image until an enlargement is seen
in real life. If you've only seen Ansel Adam's work in coffee table books,
calendar's and card, then you haven't seen Ansel's work. Likewise I have a
picture of rainbow eucalyptus grove that grows on Maui. In my booth I have
a 30x40 on the wall. The 11x14s don't have the same impact, so no book or
periodical is going to give full justice to a work of art. Or go to a live
symphony, just once, in a decent concert hall. Recordings don't do a full
orchestra justice.
There's nothing like a live view of an enlargement. Particularly a large
format enlargement.
Todd
Todd
"Gregory W. Blank" <Who...@hear-who.net> wrote in message
news:e303b.23067$081....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Gregory W. Blank
"konabear" <mau...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> RE: Splattered with paint...
>
> That makes it a Giclee, right? ;) Always wondered where the name came from!
>
> RE: another thread that states real art can only comprehended in real life.
>
> That brings us back to on topic to large format photography. It's hard to
> comprehend the detail recorded in a 4x5 image until an enlargement is seen
> in real life. If you've only seen Ansel Adam's work in coffee table books,
> calendar's and card, then you haven't seen Ansel's work. Likewise I have a
> picture of rainbow eucalyptus grove that grows on Maui. In my booth I have
> a 30x40 on the wall. The 11x14s don't have the same impact, so no book or
> periodical is going to give full justice to a work of art. Or go to a live
> symphony, just once, in a decent concert hall. Recordings don't do a full
> orchestra justice.
>
> There's nothing like a live view of an enlargement. Particularly a large
> format enlargement.
>
> Todd
Absolutely, I remember going to live shows of Weston, Strand and A. Adams
shortly after Ansels death. The books may be good but real prints much better.
If one only judges the work from one's desk top or coffee table then one will never
appreciate the magnitude or the accomplishment of any artist,...photo or otherwise.
J Stafford
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Of course he isn't joking. Disagree and you get the kill file. Whoopee! I
> predict that in six or seven months, Stafford's newsreader will show his
> posts only. He having killfiled everyone on usenet... :)
You're in it now, too, Jon. I remove the kill file ever few months, and
it builds up again. Big deal. 90% of the 'stuff' here is not worth
reading, much of what one would expect.
J Stafford
<vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > From: jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford)
> > If any photographer wants to make a difference to the homeless, he would
> > be more successful selling his gear and giving the money to the needy.
>
> Would you have said the same thing to Dorothea Lange after the Dust Bowl?
Okay, you are in the killfile after I quit and restart - but to answer
your question note that the poor woman in Lange's more famous photo never
got a penny, not enough to buy the damn Life magazine she was put into.
The photo did good old Dorothea a lot of good, but did nothing for the
subject. Get it?
konabear
graced the cover of National Geographic is getting a family trip to Mecca.
But that is one story in several thousand.
That's why some relief organizations (Church World Service et el) don't show
pictures of crisis and disaster victims. They see it as exploiting and
further victimizing the victims.
Todd
"J Stafford" <jo...@stafford.net> wrote in message
news:john-27080...@m-0-236.docsis.hbci.com...
Stacey
> In article <QWm1b.25107$_P1....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, "Gregory W. Blank"
> <Who...@hear-who.net> wrote:
>
>> Its a 2 million dollar racing stripe, that any good auto painting
>> company could and does do regularly for what $300.
>
> Hah! Auto painters are THE most over paid 'craftsmen' in the country,
> unless they work at those $99 shops.
>
Actually the labor to actualy paint the car is cheap. I can get a prep'd car
painted for $100 less materials by good auto painters. The paint (urathane)
is about $200+ a gallon for "normal" colors. Good
sandpaper/tape/paper/plastic/glaze etc costs more hundreds of dollars by
the time your done, the prep work takes 30-40 hours =if= there is no body
work which there always is. Then there is color sanding and buffing
afterwords, so the prep/materials/afterpaint finishing is where all the
cost is.
--
Stacey
J Stafford
"konabear" <mau...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> On the other hand a decade or so latter that girl from Afghanistan that
> graced the cover of National Geographic is getting a family trip to Mecca.
> But that is one story in several thousand.
>
> That's why some relief organizations (Church World Service et el) don't show
> pictures of crisis and disaster victims. They see it as exploiting and
> further victimizing the victims.
The USA press is so concerned about 'family values' that it tries to make
the real horrors of war palatable. That is so wrong it's crazy.
J Stafford
<foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually the labor to actualy paint the car is cheap. I can get a prep'd car
> painted for $100 less materials by good auto painters.
Among other things, I'm an auto builder. Perhaps you don't know what
"good" really is. Prep is 50% of the product, and no disrespect, but I
have to question whether you are really good at it. Price-out good paint
and primer and you have already run over $100, unless you are talking
about applying a temporary color, not paint as I know it.
Stacey
> In article <bijq3e$a4qpj$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>, Stacey
> <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually the labor to actualy paint the car is cheap. I can get a prep'd
>> car painted for $100 less materials by good auto painters.
>
> Among other things, I'm an auto builder. Perhaps you don't know what
> "good" really is.
Well I work at a shop that does plenty of $20,000+ Zcar restorations and our
average paint job goes for about $4,000 so I have a clue. :-)
> Prep is 50% of the product, and no disrespect, but I
> have to question whether you are really good at it.
I'm not good at it at all but can't afford to pay someone else to do it for
me. <G> I know my prep is better than Macco would do for a $299 paint job!
And I feel prep is probably more like 85% of the product if not more.
Spraying the car doesn't take much time, just experience with the material
being used. Like I said I can pay one of the guys $100 and they'll gladly
spray a car for me. Ussually takes about a day or less to do it.
> Price-out good paint
> and primer and you have already run over $100, unless you are talking
> about applying a temporary color, not paint as I know it.
The $100 I quoted was just for their labor, "less materials" to spray the
car. Like I said the paint is over $200 a gallon so the final job is more
like $500 including materials used from start to finish.
My point was that "auto painters" aren't overpaid as you stated nor is their
labor to paint the car much of the cost of a paint job, IMHO of course.
--
Stacey
Jon
> From: jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford)
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:24:48 -0500
> Subject: Re: The ridiculous price of some work.
>
> In article <BB727BE8.581A2%vze2...@verizon.net>, Jon
> <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> From: jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford)
>
>>> If any photographer wants to make a difference to the homeless, he would
>>> be more successful selling his gear and giving the money to the needy.
>>
>> Would you have said the same thing to Dorothea Lange after the Dust Bowl?
>
> Okay, you are in the killfile after I quit and restart -
Nice and safe, John ole boy. Answer and get out quick so you don't ever have
to lose an argument.
but to answer
> your question note that the poor woman in Lange's more famous photo never
> got a penny, not enough to buy the damn Life magazine she was put into.
Prove it. Put your money where your mouth is--just once.
> The photo did good old Dorothea a lot of good, but did nothing for the
> subject. Get it?
All I get is that you are a swell guy--except for the tendency to
absolutism. And, uh, being a fucking asshole. But I have to admit, I kinda
like you that way.
Jon
Jon
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:22:49 -0500
> Subject: Re: The ridiculous price of some work.
>
> <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Of course he isn't joking. Disagree and you get the kill file. Whoopee! I
>> predict that in six or seven months, Stafford's newsreader will show his
>> posts only. He having killfiled everyone on usenet... :)
>
> You're in it now, too, Jon.
Yada yada. I'm in it, I'm out of it--from your perspective this is
important. Maybe if I gave a shit, I'd mark red "X's" on my computer for
every time you killfiled me.
> I remove the kill file ever few months, and
> it builds up again.
I think you are lying. You don't killfile anyone. You just get validation
from threatening people and you sneak in and read what they reply to you,
smugly, knowing that they think you can't see their replies.
I've seen you reply to people who you have said you have killfiled--in a lot
less time than 'ever few months'. You would be lonelier and even more
pathetic if you actually killfiled everyone you threaten--you would be here
all alone.
>Big deal.
Big deal to a big man. Thanks, tough guy.
>90% of the 'stuff' here is not worth
> reading, much of what one would expect.
Would any of your one line responses fit into this magical 90%?
You are usually such a sweetheart--did you forget your Prozac again?
Jon
X0X0X0X0
konabear
flames, but...
Jon makes an interesting observation about John's comment about 90% of the
content here not being worth reading. Seems the poster with the most post
here is John! Now John doesn't account for anywhere near 90% of the posts
so it's hard to make the argument that John was saying his own posts are not
worth reading. But astonishingly John accounts for nearly 5% of all the
messages posted this year to date! Perhaps John is saying that his 5% and
some other collection of 5% is all that is worth reading. ;)
<snip>
>
> > From: jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford)
> >90% of the 'stuff' here is not worth
> > reading, much of what one would expect.
> "Jon" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BB73102C.581CE%vze2...@verizon.net...
>
> Would any of your one line responses fit into this magical 90%?
>
The data below is from 1-Jan-2003 to present as collected and published by
http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/ReportCard.asp?timespan=y&searchfor=rec.photo.equipment.large-format&searchdate=6%2F30%2F2003
Jon does have a point. Though the Microsoft data doesn't account for the
content (1 line vs. multiple), John (note the "h) is this group's most
prolific contributor over the past year. Now it may not be 90% of this
group's content. John (with h) has ranking numbers 1 and 14 (based on
active days) on the list and between the two entered posts on 238 replies to
114 threads. Some consider a high reply to threads touched ratio to be
symptomatic of a flame warrior.
Now before Jon (no h) giggles all the way to his keyboard... Jon while less
prolific has a ratio of replies to threads touched even higher than John's!
(110:34)
Now one could argue that a high reply to threads touched can come from
asking clarifying questions then responding to the questions. After all the
arguable king of valuable content here is dickburk and he replies to threads
touched count much greater than 1:1. (154:90) Though it is interesting to
note the dickburk is below a 2:1 ratio while Jon and John are above that
threshold.
J Stafford
<foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [... snip good stuff ...]
> My point was that "auto painters" aren't overpaid as you stated nor is their
> labor to paint the car much of the cost of a paint job, IMHO of course.
Well, I did some homework and my original impression was quite wrong
because I was taking the bragging of an auto painter as word. Turns out
this chap _only_ applies the paint, while another team does the prep _and_
color analysis and color mixing! He makes $24 an hour, so does each prep
person, and the shop owner makes a huge profit.
J Stafford
"konabear" <mau...@ameritech.net> wrote:
> I really should know better than to step into the middle of one of these
> flames, but...
>
> Jon makes an interesting observation about John's comment about 90% of the
> content here not being worth reading. Seems the poster with the most post
> here is John! Now John doesn't account for anywhere near 90% of the posts
> so it's hard to make the argument that John was saying his own posts are not
> worth reading. But astonishingly John accounts for nearly 5% of all the
> messages posted this year to date! Perhaps John is saying that his 5% and
> some other collection of 5% is all that is worth reading. ;)
Ah, it's time that I remind you that I AM IN MY OWN KILLFILE!
Sherman
ROFL!!! Sort of like "I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a
member!"
We all need a little humor in our day and I started laughing out loud when I
read that. Thank you.
Sherman
http://www.dunnamphoto.com
konabear
Jon
> From: jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford)
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 10:06:54 -0500
> Subject: Re: The ridiculous price of some work.
>
Hey! Finally a pertinent posting! Why doesn't that surprise me...
Jon
Jon
> flames, but...
>
Tsk, tsk!
> Jon makes an interesting observation about John's comment about 90% of the
> content here not being worth reading. Seems the poster with the most post
> here is John! Now John doesn't account for anywhere near 90% of the posts
> so it's hard to make the argument that John was saying his own posts are not
> worth reading. But astonishingly John accounts for nearly 5% of all the
> messages posted this year to date! Perhaps John is saying that his 5% and
> some other collection of 5% is all that is worth reading. ;)
>
:)
> <snip>
>
>>
>>> From: jo...@stafford.net (J Stafford)
>>> 90% of the 'stuff' here is not worth
>>> reading, much of what one would expect.
>
>
>> "Jon" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:BB73102C.581CE%vze2...@verizon.net...
>>
>> Would any of your one line responses fit into this magical 90%?
>>
>
> The data below is from 1-Jan-2003 to present as collected and published by
> http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/ReportCard.asp?timespan=y&searchfor=rec.
> photo.equipment.large-format&searchdate=6%2F30%2F2003
>
> Jon does have a point. Though the Microsoft data doesn't account for the
> content (1 line vs. multiple), John (note the "h) is this group's most
> prolific contributor over the past year. Now it may not be 90% of this
> group's content. John (with h) has ranking numbers 1 and 14 (based on
> active days) on the list and between the two entered posts on 238 replies to
> 114 threads. Some consider a high reply to threads touched ratio to be
> symptomatic of a flame warrior.
>
> Now before Jon (no h) giggles all the way to his keyboard... Jon while less
> prolific has a ratio of replies to threads touched even higher than John's!
> (110:34)
>
Giggle!
> Now one could argue that a high reply to threads touched can come from
> asking clarifying questions then responding to the questions. After all the
> arguable king of valuable content here is dickburk and he replies to threads
> touched count much greater than 1:1. (154:90) Though it is interesting to
> note the dickburk is below a 2:1 ratio while Jon and John are above that
> threshold.
Very interesting!
Jon, no 'h'
Gregory W. Blank
Jon <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hey! Finally a pertinent posting! Why doesn't that surprise me...
> Jon
Well maybe John "S" does not like to read what he has written,...
or waste the time reading it here.....but maybe he does email the replies
he posts to himself for file purposes,.....which come to think of it
may be a good idea.
Jon
> From: "Gregory W. Blank" <Who...@hear-who.net>
> Organization: Gregory W. Blank Photography
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:10:06 GMT
> Subject: Re: The ridiculous price of some work.
>
> In article <BB784637.58793%vze2...@verizon.net>,
> Jon <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Hey! Finally a pertinent posting! Why doesn't that surprise me...
>> Jon
>
> Well maybe John "S" does not like to read what he has written,...
> or waste the time reading it here.....but maybe he does email the replies
> he posts to himself for file purposes,.....which come to think of it
> may be a good idea.
Go for it Greg--I'm behind you all the way... :)
Jon, still no 'h'