'how well a particular image sells'....
Yes, completely ignore
I'm not saying art has to be popular
and
Once again, it doesn't have to be popular to be art
That's helpful to discussion.
I feel we probably have very different styles of photography. Not that either
Photographic style has little to do with the disposition of the end result. Your style is your style if you intend to sell it, show it to nobody or anywhere in between. Granted, you could have a style that wouldn't ever sell an image- but almost everyone measures success in some way- be it popularity, sales, accolades, recogntion or what have you.
one is better because of that, but we possibly use the medium to achieve different results. Anyways, I've worked in places where we printed large format pieces of 'art' for places like Ikea. Now, some of these images sold in their millions, but I would still fiercely argue whether the images were amazing, which by your outlook would be necessary for them to sell. I
Nowhere have I said an image needs to be "amazing" to sell, just that they generally need to follow specific compositional elements to sell well. That's not opinion, that's a fact borne out by observation. Nowhere have I seen any solid counter-examples offered though. Hey, I've even sold images that have had poor compositions, but not many.
believe like any of the arts, certain things sell because the mass markets are told that its the fashion, or the trend....blah blah....with the end result being that what is considered artistic quality is made much more bland and acceptable.
I haven't even limited my points to commercial success, in fact I've probably used regard as much, if not more than commercial success. None of my fine art sales have been because of "fashion" or "trend," but even fashionable or trendy art is perfectly capable of being good art. The Laughing Cavalier is good art, no matter if its popularity waxes or wanes. The Haywain is good art, no matter if its popularity waxes or wanes. For someone who's so vehement about giving lots of art its due, it's a little inconsistent to claim that popular art isn't as artistic as unpopular art.
For me, thats not what photography can or should be used for. Ok technically the images were good, but did they have any true meaning under the surface? No. I'd feel a total sell out if I only made images to sell to a mass market.
Nobody's asking, or even advocating "only making images to sell to a mass market."
The point, which you seem to be able to dance around without offering anyting other than opinion to the contrary is that the generally accepted compositional elements of art apply to well-regarded images, and breaking the "rules" without forethought simply for the sake of breaking them rarely produces art of merit. Furthermore, breaking them without knowing them tends to produce even less images of merit where merit is measured as anything outside of the artist or someone simply being contrary.
Personally, I'd feel a total sell out if I ignored hundreds of years of historical precedent for not good reason than to ignore it.
Hey, you may genuinely feel that every image presented by the OP has the same merit- but I'm going to tell you that in terms of trying to get accepted to art school, if it's between someone showing these images and someone showing work that generally falls in line with normal compositional elements I know which one I'm betting on not making it in.
