http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2011/11/really-4-3-million-for-that-photo/
"A gallery professional, who asked not to be named for concern over adverse
professional repercussions, thinks the price is a bit of a farce. He says he's
noticed a growing trend where photographers are working hard to re-brand
themselves as "artists" so they can sell their pieces in the higher-priced
fine art markets that don't traditionally trade in photography. This sale,
he said, smacks of that change.
While he tries to take a balanced approach and realize that any sale of this
kind has the potential to reflect positively on the medium of photography,
he also said it's important to call a spade a spade and avoid turning
photography into something it's not."
Interesting that Pollock is mentioned
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
hmm
I still maintain "art" as the term stands in common usage is an abreviation
of the term "a work of art" .. and that the real meaning of the word art is
the craft/skill of the person making stuff.. mind you, some segments of
society have accepted a lot of stuff made by the artless as 'art'.
I doubt many would see the product of gutting fish skillfully as 'art'.
it seems this gallery professional lies in the later camp.
k
