The real value of photography as art?

[Stanley Edwards]

Two identical smartphones. Let's assume they are top end, high quality models. If One of the phones is full of images taken by a famous name artist, does it become worth a fortune? Or, are the images worth loads? Or, is the memory card with the image files stored worth more than the phone? Or, is it all pointless and irrelevant until the artist declares it as art?

Where would the real value be and why?

 

[8ball]

You need the name to reach a certain level of herd penetration and irrational speculation will do the rest.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

You need the name to reach a certain level of herd penetration and irrational speculation will do the rest.

I've been taking too many pills!

Been reading about Damien Hirst and all the movers and makers of the day. Bloody chancers who got away with it basically. The lot of them chancers with sod all to lose.

Then reading a thread in the forum above here about phones and batteries...

I've also read Two different accounts about who was responsible for the Banksy shredder.

 

[Chilli.s]

Its the marketing that adds the value.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Its the marketing that adds the value.

It is. More Column Inches - more bucks at auction. Really is that simple.

 

[8ball]

But to answer the original question, I think it would be the actual phone with the images on it which would fetch the bucks, and any use of the phone or other data added by whomever bought it would cause a reduction in value.

 

[editor]

It is. More Column Inches - more bucks at auction. Really is that simple.

True. But generally it's only things that people find interesting that constantly attract column inches and that in turn increases the value of the art.

 

[8ball]

True. But generally it's only things that people find interesting that constantly attract column inches and that in turn increases the value of the art.

Indeed. You need to tell people what to find interesting to get the ball rolling.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Indeed. You need to tell people what to find interesting to get the ball rolling.

Absolutely.

Going back to Hirst as an example, Pharmacy was quite literally a pile of worthless rubbish on it's way to the tip. Right exposure and publicity to the right audience and it became worth €50,000,000

Hirst and conceptual art is possibly a very different market to new photography as art, but it is still relevant.

I haven't browsed the pages of *Wallpaper for years. I expect the content is much the same as edition 1.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

True. But generally it's only things that people find interesting that constantly attract column inches and that in turn increases the value of the art.

The Art Market is now controlling the media to such an extent that we don't actually get a free choice anymore. We have to be told what is interesting. Told in a way that doesn't arouse doubt. If a critic dares to speak wrongly and loudly they will have their voice taken. It is the way media today is applying censorship.

 

[weltweit]

I don't know much about the art market, but I know that some stuff sells for loads while other struggles to sell at all. I know one accomplished photographer who sells his work for peanuts, and I don't think they sell much of it, to an artist who prices their work at unobtainium prices and only needs to sell one to have done very well.

I don't think value = price. Price is just what someone was prepared to pay, and excluding auctions that price may be less than someone might have been prepared to pay.