Well ... you'd obviously know a lot more than me. Other than flying over the midwest, I've never been there. I've seen plenty of Siskind and Callahan prints in person.
The latter seemed at bit premature when it came to color work ... guess the effort deserves honorable mention.
Yes, a very strong influence of Callahan is evident in Ray Metzker's work. I think he built on some of Callahan's ideas, sometimes taking them a step further. Ray has always been among my favorites; we were in four group exhibits between 1962 and 1968 (Eastman House 1963). His first solo show was at AIC in 1959. I don't see that much of Siskind in his work, Callahan for sure.
He taught at UNM when I was there. I didn't ever manage to take a class with him but had great discussions with him about his work and what he thought of what I was working on.
Merg you would be amazed to know that some of his work at the recent Andrew Smith show was going for as much as $85k and was selling!!! I could have bought the exact prints for $100 back in the day!
Where I see Siskind in Metzgers work is his use of strong graphic compositions mainly. I don't think that is a stretch because he told me he was heavily influenced by both those guys though I don't remember him being specific about how. He was a great guy and teacher.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Well, that kinda settles it. So for yet another stereotype - and this one does seem to be statistically relevant - the best kind of pigeonhole to be classified in if you
want to be collectible is the one labeled, "dead".
I have to agree. I apologize in advance for my ignorance in the sense of not attending art school or even for that matter not following much in terms of art history...Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
In my opinion if the artist/ photographer has to be dead before his work is acknowledged or seen as valuable to collectors then what's the point. Sure, the artist's surviving family can benefit from his/her work, but if the artist can't reap or enjoy those successes while alive then what difference does it make how the "art world" classifies the work.
To me, if I can create art & enjoy what I'm doing/ making while managing to survive without having to get a "real" job, then I've won.
Who knows..if some work is preserved long enough, they can call it an artifact from the early 21st century. Ha
Isn’t art the need to hold, to make visible, what we believe or wish to believe? The elusive search, the frustration of incompleteness or inadequacy, the failed attempt at seeing, catching, recognizing, knowing something that points and reveals the nature or essence of our being–this attempt is an act by the artists: art is the message of that act.
–Ray Metzker
William Turnage was Ansel Adams' publicist. (ASCAP: How to Know When You Need a Publicist) If you want to make money from something, then it's a business. Treat it as such. This means planning and advertising (i.e., publicist). What you produce is your brand. This means packaging your product, and putting it out in front of people's eyeballs. That's how museums will know that your work is something to collect.
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
It's sad that dead artists tend to command the highest prices (not just in photography). But it seems to be less the case all the time. Without having studied the matter, it looks to me like prices at auction are going up faster for living people than for dead ones.
Check out the current Megabux List. 10 of the 19, including the top 4, are still alive. Interestingly, #7 is by an unknown photographer (but has ... um ... celebrity subject matter).
Agreed. But then you're basically still just a commercial photographer catering to alleged museum tastes instead of the cutesy postcards or ads or whatever. And
there are only eighteen thousand wannabees out there doing the same thing. Life is too short for that nonsense. Or you can take the "Bohemian" or Hippie or
starving artist career route. Or you can ignore all the nonsense, simply make a living at whatever (including possibly pure commercial photography), and then shoot
and print whatever you damn well please on your own time and budget. Life is too short to compromise the latter aspect. And despite all the folklore, very very few
famous collectible photographers made their living primarily through "art". They taught, they shot a lot of commercial stuff they didn't particularly enjoy (or maybe
did), the scrounged. And the most successful ones did indeed do something extra to boost their fame: they croaked.
That Is certainly one of the most robust and endearing descriptions of art. Thanks for that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks