Maybe turning your photos into giant sized Lego murals was just too much time, money, following detailed instructions, etc…Don’t worry, you can still turn your photos into murals–and this time all you have to do is click a button. Head over to Eric Andrew Lewis’ ‘Emoji Mosaic’, upload your photo, wait a couple seconds, then boom! The web app spits out an emoji-fied mosaic of your photo. [Read more…]
It was pretty exciting when Sigma announced that they are releasing the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 DG HSM Art lens. While the focal change between 24mm to 35mm may seem small it equates to quite a big diffidence in field of view (73 degrees vs 54 degrees for a full frame and 53 vs 37 degrees on a 1.5 crop lens).
Photorumors just shared that the price of the lens will be $999 which makes it a pretty good deal if you don’t mind the size of the lens. The other two options are getting a 35mm, f/1.8 prime and a 24, .1.4 prime. That would be extremely expensive. Or you can buy the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for a total price of $1750.
Sigma’s Art lens lineup continues to impress with the introduction of the 24-35mm f/2; the world’s fastest constant aperture full frame zoom lens.
The focal length struck some people as odd, others were disappointed it wasn’t the rumored 24-70mm f/2 lens, but if this lens is as good as Sigma says it is it could easily replace 24mm, 28mm and 35mm prime lenses for those who do not need the f/1.4 aperture.
The company calls this lens “another notch on Sigma’s belt for pure photographic innovation”, and I couldn’t agree more.
Sigma has hit it off big time with the ART series of lenses and if these leaked images are real it seems the company has no intention of slowing down anytime soon.
For years now there has been talk about a rumored 24-70 f/2 lens coming from Sigma, and this might be the lens behind all the chatter.
While disappointing that the focal length doesn’t go all the way to 70mm, Sigma has done an amazing job lately with its lenses and I don’t expect this one to be an exception.
Before Richard Prince appropriated the photos of Instagram users, and long before the SuicideGirls re-appropriated their photos, the lazy “artist” became famous for stealing re-photographing Sam Abell’s iconic cowboy photos.
Prince took cigarette ads with Abell’s Marlboro Man images and photographed them in a way that basically “cropped” the text and logo out.
With Prince selling one of these photos for almost $1.3 million in 2005 and another for $3.4 million a few years later, he became a millionaire off of Abell’s work – who did not receive a single cent from either deal.
As you’d expect Abell certainly had an opinion on Prince’s actions, as well as the art establishment’s attitude towards stolen art, and he expressed it with admirable calmness.
Below is a video interview from 2008, after his re-photographed image was sold by Prince for a record-breaking $3.4 million:
Richard Prince has been in the headlines lately after being accused, once again, of stealing other peoples’ work and selling it as his own.
Prince’s latest controversial “art” is basically a series of screenshots of various Instagram photos, along with the uploader’s name and some of the comments. In order for the work to be considered his own, Prince added a comment to the original photo – and voila! The magic of appropriation in its most embarrassing moment.
The so-called ‘face’ of the story has been blue-haired Doe Deere, but while she has stated she will not “go after him”, another party involved in this disgraceful incident has decided to take action, and in the most appropriate way.
One of the ripped-off photos belongs to SuicideGirls, and its founder Missy announced yesterday that they’re fighting back by selling prints of Prince’s appropriated work for just 0.1% of his selling price.
I guess you could call it re-appropriation.
If you were to take a screen shot of someone’s Instagram account and try selling it, two things would happen. The first is that you’d be told you’re violating the copyright of the photographer whose photo you’re selling, and secondly you’d be laughed at. Extensively.
It turns out, though, that if you’re famous enough you can take such a screen shot and not only bypass copyright but also make a fortune doing so.
The secret: slap some text on it.
Richard Prince has been using this method and some of his “artwork” is said to have been sold for $100,000.
Micheal Massaia’s collection of photos, Transmogrify, has been receiving mixed reactions. For some, the images are nauseating, some find them hypnotizing, while, for others, they’re simply mouthwatering. In fact, they may be some odd combination of all those things. Massaia himself describes them as “mesmerizing, disturbing, and humorous.” But, looking past the surface of things, as artists tend to do, you’ll see the images are based on something much more introspective. At the metaphorical heart of the colorful, swirling pools of liquescent dairy products sits a heaping dose of nostalgia just waiting to be recognized. [Read more…]
As an artist, it makes me really sad when I read the comments from articles like this: “How To Take Magical Family Candids” or this: Alexia Sinclair’s Breathtaking Photo Shoot in a 350-Year-Old Frozen Castle or this: Ordinary People Shot As Superheroes with so many simply whining about the level of Photoshopping involved.
I have been a photographer for a very long time – but only recently have I actually started thinking about my work as art.
And that, I think is the difference…
I am going to go out on a ledge here and say it: If you are one of those people complaining how much Photoshop editing has been used to produce what is otherwise an amazing, gripping visual work of art – you’re not an artist – you’re just a photographer.
The value of art has been at the center of many heated debates, probably ever since the first piece was sold, only being surpassed by the debate on the actual definition of art and what can be considered art.
LifeHunters decided to check what happens when a $10 print from the critically acclaimed Swedish artist Ike Andrews, known to most people as IKEA, is mixed into an art collection worth millions.
Art buffs analyzed and admired the piece; some valued it in the hundreds of thousands and even millions of Dollars, but above all they proved that art is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
While most people got a chuckle out of this experiment, not everybody thought it was amusing. I guess serious art is no laughing matter.