PetaPixel

Disposable Cameras Exposed by Artists On Sale for $1,000 Each — Undeveloped

New York City gallery W/—— (pronounced “with”) seems to think that art buying has gotten a bit snobby, and that photographers have gotten a bit used to having unlimited chances to capture the perfect shot. Enter their new Disposable Cameras project, currently on display at the NADA art fair in Miami through this weekend. If you visit W/——’s booth at the fair, you’ll find a wall of 24 hanging disposable cameras, each with a very hefty price tag.

Each of the 24 cameras was given to a photographer/artist to do with as they pleased. The cameras were then returned by the artists to W/—— in time for this art show. The cameras, filled with the undeveloped and therefore un-viewable work of their temporary owners, are now on sale for $1,000 a piece to optimistic patrons browsing NADA.

Gallery co-founder MacGregor Harp explained to ARTINFO yesterday that the project is part “trust exercise” for the consumers and part challenge to the photographers. No unlimited opportunities, just 27 shots that your trusting fans will buy sight unseen.

As of yesterday 7 of the cameras had already sold, with plenty of time left for the remaining 17. So if you happen to be in Miami, have $1,000 to spend, and are feeling lucky (punk?), you may wanna swing by the fair… and then your local 1-hour photo.

(via POTB and ARTINFO)


 
  • April

    what.

  • http://twitter.com/JMaytum Julian Maytum

    (&#*&#*@#)(* Sorry.. you will need to find the translation for that over at the gallery with the name thingy.

  • JosephRT

    You don’t have to get it developed. You could set it next to your crucifix in a jar of urine piece.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Ha! For a second there I was dreading that one of the cameras was used by Serrano… Glad to see that’s not the case.

  • http://twitter.com/Unknowngamer38 Donovan Styre

    This is kind of genius. It’s at once too expensive and far too cheap: you have no idea if you’re getting anything even usable, but you’re also getting an artist original that cannot be reproduced, save by you. I could see this catching on.

  • ennuipoet

    This is why I will never the kind of artist who is given these projects, I wouldn’t able to making a camera full of blurry photos that may or may not be a penis.

  • http://www.facebook.com/morlosky Mick Orlosky

    I believe Amanda Palmer’s contribution comes with a handwritten note that says “CONTAINS NAKED”

    It would be even more ballsy to crack the cam in a darkroom and respool the film to double-expose it. Hell yes I would!

  • http://shashinkaichiban1.wordpress.com/ shashinka

    It’s like a grab bag for the art world

  • http://shashinkaichiban1.wordpress.com/ shashinka

    And even then, one wouldn’t know until such a buyer takes the camera to their local Wal*Mart of Sav’On to have the 1-hr photo lab process it.

  • harumph

    Serrano is an excellent photographer. I would definitely gamble on an undeveloped roll of his.

  • rtfe

    Piero Manzoni. canned his excrement in multiple tins in 1961. last one sold at auction for £124,000. crap. state of the art

  • http://italobrito.tumblr.com/ Ítalo Brito

    Next month: 512 MB flash cards with original RAWs by the same photographers taken with DSLRs for $50,000 each.

  • David Tribby

    This is retarded. On another note I wont take a gallery seriously that is pronounced “with” spelled W/—, what a bunch of snobbery

  • http://www.facebook.com/nathanblaney Nathan Blaney

    I’m a fan of the double exposure idea! Or even go in with a couple other photographers, split the cost of the camera maybe 4 ways and then all shoot a handful of frames – you’d get a 5 way photo collaboration with some unknown content… could be pretty interesting. I have no idea if it would add to or detract from the value of the original work though.

  • Sam Agnew

    Cool!

  • Fred Nerks

    It must be nice to have $1000 to throw away on a piece of junk. If you have the film developed, the “art” is then destroyed. And if you keep it as is, and you decided to sell it, who’s going to take your word that some famous artist/photographer took the shots?

  • ga1n

    Great point. It’s perceived value is the mystery factor. Once it’s developed you take that away. How much would they have priced the 27 still images of these artists? Seems much easier to just price it sight unseen for $1000–in albeit a unique concept of disposable film camera.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    If by “excellent” – you mean “Hack whose claim to fame is imagery of (literally) excrement, piss, other bodily fluids smeared together, and other works shot merely for the sake of creating controversy, yet somehow fail due to their obviousness and trite nature” – then yeah, “Excellent”…

  • harumph

    Of course he also has hundreds of beautiful photos that depict none of the things you describe, but never mind those, right? Is Bob Cooley a pseudonym for Jess Helms?

  • harumph

    You don’t think that 27 individual prints by these photographers would exceed a total of $1000? How many gallery artists do you know who sell their work for $40 or less? $1000 is a bargain if you’re going to compare it to individual print prices.

    And I don’t agree that the “art is destroyed” if these are developed, as Fred Nerks stated above. The “art” here could be seen as the entire process, and the final stage in that process is the buyer developing the film to reveal the work. I don’t think the value is in the mystery factor.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    I think you mean Jesse Helms (if you are going to attempt clever slurs, you should at least be accurate in them) – No, my name is my name, I don’t hide behind anonymous pseudonyms when I post. Only trolls do that.

    And I do support art that creates controversy when it isn’t incredibly obvious and is well-crafted. Robert Mapplethorpe’s work was twice as infamous, but he was a true craftsman – few have rivaled skintones, and his lighting and composition are far superior. Joel-Peter Witkin, again, more controversial, but at the same time much more of a craftsman. Senator Helms didn’t like either of them, either – though I do.

    I defy you to find a dozen beautiful photos Serrano has created, let alone “hundreds”… He has no mastery of light, no sense of narrative, a beginning photography student’s grasp of composition, and his work is as subtle as a t-shirt slogan.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    I think you mean Jesse Helms (if you are going to attempt clever slurs, you should at least be accurate in them) – No, my name is my name, I don’t hide behind anonymous pseudonyms when I post. Only trolls do that.

    And I do support art that creates controversy when it isn’t incredibly obvious and is well-crafted. Robert Mapplethorpe’s work was twice as infamous, but he was a true craftsman – few have rivaled skintones, and his lighting and composition are far superior. Joel-Peter Witkin, again, more controversial, but at the same time much more of a craftsman. Senator Helms didn’t like either of them, either – though I do.

    I defy you to find a dozen beautiful photos Serrano has created, let alone “hundreds”… He has no mastery of light, no sense of narrative, a beginning photography student’s grasp of composition, and his work is as subtle as a t-shirt slogan.

  • ga1n

    To clarify, my criticism is directed toward the sale via the disposable cameras–and the perceived cachet of buying them–not their contents and or artistic value of the individual artist’s work. To me art is the finished work not the clever packaging, sale or whatever other gimmick.

    If my prior post’s phrasing gives the impression that I don’t value the artistic value–then i clarify that’s not my intent.

    You refuting my post with “art is destroyed” is a total straw man argument–and not a relevant response to my points.

  • http://twitter.com/ralphhightower Ralph Hightower

    Uh, no. I think that I’ll wait for Florence Thompson (Migrant Mother) to shoot a disposable camera before I buy a preexposed disposable camera.

  • harumph

    I made a typo, therefore I lose the debate. Congratulations!

  • harumph

    If, to you, the art is the finished work, then you should be in agreement with me that the film should be developed by the buyer. Therefore the art is not destroyed by developing it. Yes, this is in part a conceptual piece, but as I wrote above, the final step in the execution of the concept should be to develop the film and make prints. There would be no point in keeping the camera “as is,” as you suggested. Then you truly would be just throwing away $1000 on nothing. But then nobody except you is suggesting that the buyer shouldn’t develop the photos. I believe that developing them is the entire point.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    No, you just hide behind a pseudonym and make an ad hominem attack, yet offer nothing to support your arguments about the statement at hand…

  • harumph

    Right, I’m probably the only person on the Internet with a screen name. And you’re probably the only person in the world named Bob Cooley. In other words, our names have absolutely nothing to do with anything, so I have no idea why you’re harping on it. And an ad hominem attack? Wow, when did that happen?

    I like Andres Serrano, and you–most emphatically–do not. Do you really think that I’m going to attempt to convince you otherwise? Get over it.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Your name has everything to do with standing behind what you say. There are actually a lot of Bob Cooley’s in the US, but mine is my name, with my photo, and work attached to it. I’m easy to find and stand behind my statements – if you want to hide behind a fictitious name, so be it, but don’t expect to take anything you say seriously.

    You were the one who decided to jump in on a humorous reference that Joseph and I were sharing. The ad hominem attack is you calling me Jesse Helms (and I see you corrected your spelling after the fact – bravo).

    I’m still waiting to see the “hundreds” of beautiful images you were referencing. Actually, at this point, I’d rather not – go hide behind your false name and troll on someone else’s comments.

  • harumph

    Do you fly into a self-righteous rage every time you encounter somebody with a screen name? The Internet must be a lot of fun for you. If you’d just get over the whole pseudonym thing, you’d see that all I’ve done is expressed a fondness for Serrano’s work. What am I hiding from exactly? Your theory is that I’ve created a nom du screen in order to pretend that I enjoy Andres Serrano? Who’s the troll here?

    I suggest you flip through Serrano’s America front to back if you’re actually interested in seeing a cohesive set of beautiful shots that do in fact form a compelling narrative when viewed as a whole. But then, I suspect you’re really just interested in giving yourself an aneurysm. So knock yourself out, and explain to us again how much you hate Serrano. We haven’t quite gotten the point yet.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    lol. if you think this is a rage, you need to get more fresh air. I never stated that you created an anon screen name to say anything about Serrano’s work – I have a ‘theory’? where did you get that?

    If you are using the America project as your example, then you’ve made my exact point – any 1st year photo student or sears portrait photographer could have shot that project – far from beautiful, its incredibly ordinary. I’ve seen the work, there is no narrative.

    And again, I didn’t ask for your response, you took that upon yourself, and have continued to troll away ever since. So kindly to crawl back under your anonymous bridge, and troll no more.

  • http://twitter.com/BenicioMurray Benicio Murray

    I hope we get to hear about what the buyers do with their rolls in the coming months

  • ga1n

    I never brought up the idea that the art is destroyed by developing it. You again are assuming my position and going off on your own tangents.

    I made my point clear that i personally find the sale gimmicky.
    I would rather buy the finished art– the actual prints (which are processed to the artists intended vision).

    So clearly i’m in disagreement with you with this opinion.

  • harumph

    Yes, Fred Nerks was the one who asserted that “If you have the film developed, the ‘art’ is then destroyed,” and you followed up by agreeing with him. I thought my first post made it clear that I my second paragraph was in response to Fred. The way these replies just slip into a straight vertical column doesn’t make this sort of three way conversation very readable. I lost track of who I was responding to. Apologies.

  • ga1n

    I see your point– I could see how my initial response could have left that impression. Glad we have clarity now and healthy discourse.