Nice that you’ve apologized to all of the doubters on this forum thread for your insults early on in the thread, Jack.
I never apologized to anyone, actually.
Nor will I.
I'm pretty sure I simply said, "Interesting," in my last post.
(Glad you got all that off your chest though.)
My last post did reveal I am more sympathetic to the doubters now, but the sum and substance of my previous debate was with Amolitor's vituperations about "skill" (
not credibility). The idea that technical skill is what sells photos, and that "anyone" can sell high $$ prints if (in his words) they "sell their soul" ...
This was the laughable jackassery with which I took issue.
As can be seen by my posting a link to
all the high $$ photos historically, Amolitor's hooplah over Lik's skill being mediocre really is laughable, since
most of these top $$$ shots are
not technically-difficult in the least either.
Some are "artsy," and some are evocative, but
none of the top $$ images is really technically-difficult. So what do I own an apology for?
Because, as far as the argument for
true value goes, for the money spent,
only the image of Billy The Kid was historically-significant (and possibly Wall's war/death image), which means (for investment purposes)
most of the images do not actually justify the expenditure.
I remain staunch in my position that all the drama surrounding Lik is
good for photographers, because it draws the public's imagination toward high $$ images. As I also clearly said,
"Even Lik selling multiple single images in the $20,000-$40,000 range is great. How many of you do this? Other record-breakers don't always make record-breaking sales either."In the end, I don't know the truth about who bought Lik's work (nor why), nor do any of you.
But even with all the doubt, two things I said remain true: (1) the highest-$$ images in history have
almost nothing to do with "technical skill," at all. (2) These images either have to do with some kind of artsy "vision" that was evocative to someone with money, or capturing a graphic moment that resonated with someone with money, or (in only one case) it was an historically-significant photo (the only known image of Billy The Kid.)
High $$ photography is
not about "technical skill"; it's about capturing someone's imagination ... or by being being somewhere to capture a great moment.
So yall can pretty much sit down. The "skill" issue can be put to bed.
In fact, go re-read everything I said with my statement giving the musician's quote: there are many "extremely talented" musicians
who don't know what a hit song is. Being able to create hit songs is not about technical skill either; it's about being able to capture "something" (some beat/rhythm) that the public wants to buy.
The same principle translates to photography.
Gursky, Sherman, and Stieglitz were not geniuses "technically," but artistically.
And I am pretty sure they also put
the work in to make sure they were at the right place at the right time.
Jack