Is this potato art?

[Otto Phocus]

The photograph of the potato is art if either the photographer, the viewer, or the purchaser considers it art.

If one wishes to apply an adjective to the word art, that would be subjective and everyone has the ability to use what ever adjective they feel is appropriate.

[RSL]

Who cares whether or not a particular object can be called "art?" You can call ANYTHING art if that's your preference, and you can turn up your nose at someone calling something "art" if it's not your cuppa tea. Unless you first define what you mean by "art" the word is absolutely meaningless.

[GrahamBy]

I like the photo, in fact. It is also coherent with eg his photo of the remains of a thanks-giving turkey. Since I'm vegan, I'd hang the potato but not the dead bird.

I wouldn't pay a million for it, but if someone else will, so be it.

I think I still prefer my three clementines, which cost about 4€ for the paper and ink. The fruit I ate immediately after the shoot, so its cost was fully amortized.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Who cares whether or not a particular object can be called "art?" You can call ANYTHING art if that's your preference, and you can turn up your nose at someone calling something "art" if it's not your cuppa tea. Unless you first define what you mean by "art" the word is absolutely meaningless.

With that strict, unbending way of thinking we can just write off the Mona Lisa as flea market schlock.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Who cares whether or not a particular object can be called "art?" You can call ANYTHING art if that's your preference ...

Good idea, Russ. I find it very hard to delete my obvious "loser" images, but following your suggestion I think I'll make a folder called "Art" and dump all my rejects there.   

Eric

[Isaac]

Who cares whether or not a particular object can be called "art?" You can call ANYTHING art if that's your preference, and you can turn up your nose at someone calling something "art" if it's not your cuppa tea. Unless you first define what you mean by "art" the word is absolutely meaningless.

Your comment is meaningless.

You must first define what you mean by the words you used. (Before that, you must define what you mean by the words used in your definition. Before that …)

[RSL]

Good idea, Russ. I find it very hard to delete my obvious "loser" images, but following your suggestion I think I'll make a folder called "Art" and dump all my rejects there.   

Eric

For a minute there I thought you were going to say you'd dump 'em on LuLa. Whew! (I've thought about doing that just to make a point.)

Now let's see what jabberwocky Isaac can come up with to knock this post.

[BradSmith]

The photographer's quote from the original linked article about the sale says volumes about nearly all high end art discussion from the justifiers.  It is all just meaningless drivel.

"I see commonalities between humans and potatoes that speak to our relationship as individuals within a collective species," says Abosch.
Generally, the life of a harvested potato is violent and taken for granted. I use the potato as a proxy for the ontological study of the human experience."

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Abosch: "I use the potato as a proxy for the ontological study of the human experience."

I think it would be more germane to use the excrement from a male bovine as a proxy for the ontological study of the human experience.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I think it would be more germane to use the excrement...

Too late, Eric, someone beat you to it:

Elephant Dung Artist Scoops Up 1998 $35,000 Turner Prize

[amolitor]

An interesting thing that never really gets remarked on here is this:

We are expected to believe in Lik's and Abosch's sales because there are these other sales, Gursky and Sherman, with similar prices. This is utter rot, the high prices we see in actual sales that actually happened are all on the secondary market. These are specific pieces that have been rattling around for a while, that have changed hands, that have proved to have (albeit in that mysterious and incomprehensible world of high end art) some sort of "legs". People want these pieces, people have owned these pieces and have been persuaded to part with them for a profit. The value has been established, and re-established at successively higher price points.

Lik and Abosch, on the other hand, with their fake sales, are claiming primary market sales, where the prices simply are not that high. There's a false comparison here, which yields a false "well maybe" pseudo-legitimacy.

[GrahamBy]

Good point by Andrew.

In any case, after the two vernissages I attended on the weekend, I would have been relieved to see a well photographed potato.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

FYI, the latest illustrated list of:

https://www.photographytalk.com/photography-articles/3289-the-73-most-expensive-photographs-ever-sold

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

FYI, the latest illustrated list of:

https://www.photographytalk.com/photography-articles/3289-the-73-most-expensive-photographs-ever-sold

Hey! How come I didn't make that list?
I just sold one of my photos to myself for $4,335,501, which beats out Gursky's top price (by $1).
I call it "Gursky's portrait of Cindy Sherman, with Potato, II."

 

[Robert Roaldi]

May just be a matter of exposure to the work. I find I like it better today than I did a couple of days ago. Maybe we need to wait a decade or two to give it a chance.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

May just be a matter of exposure to the work. I find I like it better today than I did a couple of days ago. Maybe we need to wait a decade or two to give it a chance.

It really isn't that much of a photograph, no matter how long you look at it. But that is irrelevant. It isn't the technical or even esthetic quality that made the buyer part with his cool million. There are only two other options: 1. expectation that it will go up in price, given the history and reputation of the photographer 2. personal meaning to the buyer. Maybe his ancestors perished in the potato famine, who knows.

I once saw an image in a Hasselblad calendar that almost brought me to tears. You know, nothing really special, it was, after all, just a pretty calendar image, often denigrated as just another chocolate-box cover, and yet... A simple, square composition of a tree, with fall foliage still on, mercilessly flogged by a sudden blizzard. And yet it triggered something deep in me. Can't find it anymore (if someone can, please send me a link).

[BobDavid]

Is it me? Or is Cindy Sherman's work dull and narcissistic?

[amolitor]

Narcissistic as hell, but never dull.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Narcissistic as hell, but never dull.

I must agree with Andrew.
I used to think she was merely narcissistic until I saw a big retrospective show a few years ago at MOMA in New York.
I was hugely impressed that she is a true artist (Definition: Fine Art is anything I like, of course.)

Eric

[amolitor]

She works her butt off. You try making a group of 50 deeply narcissistic selfies without descending into tedium!