Have Camera Make Money

BARREL BREAK wrote:   __sneaky__ wrote: Photography: The bastard child of fine arts. Photography is an amalgamation of tools and processes with myriad applications.

Thanks for clearing that up.

BARREL BREAK wrote:  Because those are some pretty damn cool images? I'm gonna hazard a guess, your walls are bare?

DeTrevni wrote: Keith Saylor?

There is a lot of work put into it (a theoretical photo print, as I can't speak to this in specific), in the thousands of hours spent making and thinking about photos, honing craft, producing prints, etc. However, that is irrelevant in the valuation of art. Valuing something for time invested in any pursuit is really, really dumb. Would you rather own a poorly made chair a craftsman spent 100 hours making, or a beautiful, perfectly molded chair produced in an hour by someone with a mechanized process (or just one built in much less time by a different craftsman)? Reproducibility is likewise fallible as valuation, as there are a great deal of methods of producing nearly indiscernible copies of paintings. Further, the idea of individual craftsmanship and authorship are woefully divorced from historical reality, most of the great artists of western history ran ateliers in which they had many assistants cranking out work in their name.

My main reason for posting was because (like with any interest) our perspectives on this board are very different than the average person, especially in the creative field. So things that are just nice images of a saturday in the past to us, can be seen as beautiful, valuable, rare images to some.

I don't get it.

BARREL BREAK wrote: Those are some pretty cool photos, too expensive for me to get a print though. :-/

DeTrevni wrote: Keith Saylor?

Those are some pretty cool photos, too expensive for me to get a print though. :-/

Rip off