• From the Apple press release:”iPhone art is the revolutionary new art form that’s inspired by, shot with, and edited on the iPhone.”

    Edited on the iPhone.

    Period.

    End of story.

    Take it up with Apple if you don’t like it.

    You want to have your work on photoshop sites, be my guest.

    Here is a real artist talking about both “exclusivity” and what working on the iphone means to her art and process: http://vimeo.com/15906377

    • Yes Knox, I know, Apple is the main art expert in the world, publishing art articles and curating exhibitions once a week, also supporting lots of artists.

      I have a friend, Lluis, who says Apple iPhone is rubbish and you can do the same better with other mobile phones with android. I don’t agree but, you know, he sells that mobile phones.

      I agree iPhone is a new tool for art, and I work to show it to the art community, don’t know why I forgot Apple. I will be on Tv talking about iphonography in a couple of days. I’mve been talking with the tv show producers, and what is most clear about all is that we don’t want to make it an iPhone commercial. We will talk about this incredible new tool for artists and the community.

  • I would take time to answer this, but I’m so busy getting my messiah robe fitted.

  • And allow me only one question.

    Why should we define iphoneography as something different to any other kind of art ?

    Art is art, isn’t it ?

  • iPhone art as a separate strand? huh? rules regarding art? huh? not getting just a tiny bit pretentious?

  • You miss my point regarding van gogh his work was always great art regardless of the exposure it received

  • I was interested in the brief discussion prompted by Jordi about whether the work displayed at Pixels is art or not.

    If the criteria of Jordi V. Pou were applied to all art quote…

    “We will be artist when our work gets to art centers, museums, public and private art collectors, art fairs, art schools, not-iPhone-only galleries, etc…”

    then much of the worlds art would be considered worthless!

    Van Goghs work (I’m using an analogy not comparing art works) wasnt considered worthy or even exhibited until after his death.

    All art forms haver a period of fruition and iphone photography is in its early stages but to say its not art given the level of talent displayed at Pixels by so many photographers is nonsense – sorry Jordi but no one can tell you what art is, thinkers have debated it for centuries but when you see it, you know it and you can see it every day at pixels!

    • You’re right Jason. No discussion there, art is always a personal sensation. So there are as much opinions as people thinking about. And this includes people seeing art in Pixels and people who is not.

      But you’re just contradicting yourself with the Van Gogh example. We now believe in him as an artist because after his death some people saw his work and started to trade it as art ( galleries, museums, collector ). Without them will know about Van Gogh now ? I don’t say I like it, or even if it’s fair, but this is how it goes.

      Anyway today is much different from Van Gogh’s time and we have new tools to show our work. Internet is a must. Maybe there’s a way there. And of course Pixels and ALL the sites showing our work are helping.

        • Hi Knox

          Just read the article with such attention. Great presentation of what was happening a century ago, which I totally agree with.

          I posted my opinion there on the article site.

          I totally disagree with the last part of the article, the one probably influenced by yourself Knox. Looks like to do art we have to do what some photographers were doing a century ago. Photography has grown a lot during this time, finding lots of new ways, that in my opinion are much interesting than Camera Works period.

          • Your supposition that I had something to do with that article is laughable, Jordi. You dig yourself deeper into the hole every time you write something. You are just mad that the medium has evolved past you and the rest of the old guard with their street photography and concepts and “projects.” Pixels artists are making one timeless picture at a time. Shoot more, app as needed, and post less is the new motto.

            I don’t mind pointing out to you that Apple came to PIXELS to introduce iphonography in their stores. When the NY Times discovered iphonography, the staff writer called me and interviewed me as the curator of PIXELS for 45 minutes. And now this Atlantic article, singled out PIXELS. Do you note a pattern here?

            And you asked me to take all your work off the site? It’s gone and, you know what? No one noticed.

        • You’re right Knox, there’s a big hole and you’re just putting all of us inside them, including YOUR pixels artists. And the hole will soon be soon so full of shit than none will care of our/yours work.

          You’re only promoting yourself. And with your ideas you’re just making everyday that more people thinks of mobile photographers/iPhoneographers as wannabe jokable artists. Promote whatever you want, it’s your sect, but forget about representing everybody, you don’t. You’r true is just yours, but not everybody feels the same. As long as you keep talking about what is good or not I will keep telling my opinion.

          I have left pixels and I’m happy. No one noticed, well that’s your opinion. Mine is that more will follow, and I hope them to make it public and argue it, as I did.

          And I repeat, anyone who sees something good for iPhoneography in that article just read the comments to see what is the reaction.

          Knox I don’t believe you.

          • Believe whatever the hell you want, Jordi. My sect? That’s laughable. You reveal so much about yourself by calling me a messiah and Pixels a sect. Pixels is simply the best gallery of iphonographic work in existence, built one day at a time based on a love of the work and respect for the artists.

          • Jordi,

            You may want to look around, Pixels is a Web site, nothing more (at this time). There is a curator involved, that would be Knox and possibly some other influences. Pixels has nothing to do with my aesthetic. I was creating my images way before Pixels, way before the iPhone. My ideas, are similar to what I was doing 25 years ago with traditional media, the iPhone just makes it easier, cheaper and healthier.

            The big difference between Pixels and other Web sites is that they generally look beyond traditional photography in what they promote. They are also very open about their biases. However, unlike other sites, their biases aren’t aesthetic. This is a big differentiator for me. Pixels has a very ridged idea of what iPhoneography is from a technical/process level and I can work with that. When I can’t, I don’t post to Pixels. See how easy things can be?

            iPhoneography is not a photographic movement or photographic revolution, at all. It is a technological “revolution” at best, similar to what happened with desktop publishing and the WWW. It puts previously out of reach technology and processes into the hands of amateurs… and pros if they desire it.

            As for what is and what isn’t art…who cares? I rarely agree anyway.

  • Awesome! I thought the rules said the photos “could not be manipulated” but now I see the “on a computer” part. Thanks for clarifying.

  • Wait, I have a question – couldn’t read through all of the comments to see if it was answered because most of them seem unrelated and there are a BUNCH.

    If I was to enter, I would want to take photos I’ve taken on my iPhone and manipulate them in some way – but I prefer to do this on my iPhone itself, not on my computer. Is this allowed? For example could I take some of the photos I’ve uploaded (unmanipulated) put them through the Frameforge App on the phone, and submit? Or does it have to be the raw pic? I’ll submit them if so, but I don’t think they’re quite good enough.

    The reason I ask is because some of the demo photos I’ve seen here and on Cult of Mac definitely look manipulated in some fashion, but possibly that was done on the iPhone through an iPhone app.

    An answer would be great because I would love to submit!

    • I do not understand where you get the idea that apping is not allowed. Most of the images on this site are heavily apped! The only thing not allowed is image processing on a computer or iPad. iPhone only! Thanks for checking.

  • I have at least one question but it seems to lead to another. Size requirements for submissions.?? The additional question arises about the definition of acceptable iphoneography. Perhaps not unlike most I store my images on my desktop Mac. I use Aperture to manage these digital assets. Once run through this process do my images meet the strict definition you’ve outlined?

    Charles

    • Charles, I just don’t allow images that have been manipulated on a computer. It is fine to archive your images on your computer and submit from there. Thank you for checking.

      • Knox, when you print your photos to exhibit, I understand they are up-scaled in Adobe Photoshop before being printed, is this not computer manipulation?

        • Are you acquainted with the pantograph used in scaling sculpture from one medium to another, i.e., clay to bronze, Glyn? http://www.keropiansculpture.com/enlgmachine.html
          Same concept.

          Artist makes iphonographic work on iphone, since the medium is defined by the device. I believe we are all in agreement about that.

          It is the printers job to take the vision and translate to another medium, i.e., print. Just like the foundry takes the sculptor’s original and uses a pantograph to enlarge and create waxes for molds.

          I hope this helps.

          -Knox

          • Knox, you are still manipulating the photo/image at the final stage on a computer, so why can’t contributors manipulate an image in their favourite photo app, whether that be outside the iPhone, on an iPad or PC. If the image has originated from an iPhone, it is still an iPhone photo, and with the iPhone becoming ever more powerful we will see more apps that were once only available for computers, appearing on our iDevices, making little difference to where we choose to edit our photos.

            Whilst I am an advocate for using the iPhone to take and edit photos, I also believe photographers should be able to use their photo editing app of choice, and think it is a real shame that some iPhoneographers should be excluded because they do not conform to the Pixels rules.

            Just my opinion, but hey, who am I :)

          • Absolutely wrong, Glyn. I’ve answered the question. You are comparing apples to oranges.

            The device defines the medium, period. My analogy of the pantogram holds. I will not allow Pixels to become a photoshop site, nor will I stand idly by while others try to degrade the medium. I will shortly be posting a mini-documentary soon wherein Maia Panos talks about working on a picture for a week on an iphone. That is part of the art form, working with the limitations of the device. If she can do it and make her beautiful images, so can others if they have the desire, the talent, and the dedication. Why would I ever display a photoshopped picture next to one of her gems and say they were both iphonographic documents.

            To bring that image to print is an entirely different aspect. And I will say this again as I have had to many times: I have had the privilege of being in a gallery for more time than any other single person on earth where iphonographic art was on display. I’ve done two month-long shows now and I have watched people react to the work. And I have been asked many times if computer manipulation was allowed. I can tell you without any qualification that people have been fascinated and intrigued and even happy that the works were done SOLELY on the iphone. Because everybody knows what can be done with photoshop now, and the fact that people work with the limitations of the iPhone is important.

            Making prints is simply making prints, part art, part craft. But the artists has already done the real work ON THE IPHONE.

          • If I did not get it wrong working with limitations makes you an artist. Then the important is not the final image but how long dud you take to do it. C’mon let’s be serious!!

  • ( sorry I press the publish button by error before ending )

    Just about factions… I don’t care about them. Art world is out there, lots of doors and ways to get in. No need of what you call factions.

    Good luck with your site and efforts Knox.

    As I said at the beginning I won’t be sending my request to be in your shows. I don’t want to be a Pixels only artist, I’m just trying to be an artist by now.

    As many of my pictures includes backs, foots, self shadows, and manequins ( like the one featured as photo of the day in pixels last Monday ) I will stop sending them. I can’t find myself a way to remove my images from your site so I will please ask you to do it.

    Jordi V. Pou

  • I’ve been following this coments interested on having more info about what is going to happen with the new Pixels rules.

    I must say, to be honest, that my first decision is still the one I have by now and I won’t be in. Dealing with the exclusivity clause is the main reason but not the only one. My arguments are not different of Dixon or Gilles, so I won’ be long with them.

    I also must say that I’ve been involved many times preparing exhibitions, much before iPhone appears. Not only mines but promoting others work. Visiting galleries, museums, sponsors, and dealing with artists is time and money consuming. So I understand you Knox as I understand any, wherever in the world they are, who is promoting iPhone or mobile photography. It’s always a hard work.

    We can also talk about why is all this people doing this. I don’t know. I know why I do it but that’s it. And I will be joining and helping anyone who does it honestly and which rules I could admit.

    Pixels is your site Knox, an art gallery curated the old way, as you like to define it. You talk continuosly about your artists, defending iPhone photography as a new art. I totally agree that you can do art with an iPhone but I see very little art done with it by now, in Pixels and in other sites.

    We all iPhone photographers are so proud to call what we do art. But showing our work in an iPhone photographers managed site does not make it art. Calling us self artist won’t convert us in artists. Exposing postcard cards in hundreds, doing couple of day exhibitions, or hiring any place to self-show will not make us artist, as will not do showing on a store, even if it’s one from Apple.

    We will be able to call us artist when whe start to open doors of the art circles, in the same condition of any artist using any kind of tool, because that is what iPhone is, a tool. We will be artist when our work gets to art centers, museums, public and private art collectors, art fairs, art schools, not-iPhone-only galleries, etc…

    And I’m sure this will happen. It’s happening. But by this moment I can’t see it in Pixels, neither in other “contest” sites. All of them, and all of us iPhone photographers, are just dealing with the novelty and atraction of mobile photography for most of the public. But this is not forever, in not many time interest in mobile/iPhone photography will dissapear

    You also talk about factions.

    • Well, Jordi – I’m sorry you can’t see art and artists in Pixels, because I sure do. You just insulted everybody working in the medium. If you feel this way about the work being produced, why are you involved with a gallery show?
      Frankly, I do not need anybody to tell me whether or not I am an artist. I know how much work I put into my art, whether it be iPhonography or music. And I do not need anybody to tell me about who is or is not an artist on Pixels. I know how much work people put into their images. I have also had a couple of month-long gallery shows, where I saw the reaction to the work over and over and over. This is a new medium, still very much underground, evolving very rapidly.
      In fact, I believe that iPhonography is the most vibrant art form on the planet, a blend of photography and painting and printmaking (we’ve printed and hung more iphonography than everybody else combined). Whereas much of the art out in the “art” world is calculated, contrived, commodified, iPhonography starts with the photographic image and through apping brings for a new kind of magical realism that people respond to on a visceral,emotional level. It’s amazing. You might be some kind of art guy, therefore part of the problem, not the solution.
      There aren’t any factions, just people who are serious and who are not. I want the serious people on Pixels. The other issue is computer editing. Pixels stands for the people who do all their image work on their iPhones. The device defines the medium. Sites that allow computer manipulation are simply not true iphonographic sites and I’m afraid that by posting on those sites, people are giving tacit approval to the degradation of the medium. I just wanted to draw a line in the sand about that.
      Sorry you want off the site. I knew I would lose a few. But someone has to protect the medium from the hucksters, and I knew in so doing I would piss some people off.

      • Sorry Mr Knox, I should have not disturbed the messias of iphonography with my thoughts. No opinions, just a leader, looks like there are not factions but something that starts to look like a sect.

        It’s not about what pixels looked like in the beginning, I was there also. It’s about what looks about now. That’s why I’m out now.

        Good luck.

  • It’s good people question and ask. Knox answers I believe will make us realize how lucky we are to be part of the Pixels movement… The best is yet to come

    Thank Knox for the hard work.

    • Our man in Miami! Thank you Jaime. I always appreciate your support and insight. We are improvising as we go, trying to make it work for everybody.

    • Being part of only the Pixels movement is the problem I have with exclusivity. Before it was iphoneography with people sharing encouraging and promoting each other. And I appreciate Knox’s hard work in doing such.

      If as you say Knox that you are really only interested in the art and artist it seems to me you would be happy by the success of all iphoneographers and contest that promote this wonderful art form. I find it very sad it has gotten to the point where people are asked to choose one contest over another. Guess the golden days are gone.

      • That is correct, Dixon. If you study every art movement history, you will see at some stage, factions develop. It never fails. At this point the hucksters have moved in on iphonography and I am taking a stand against them, plain and simple.

        First off, we are not doing contests. I hate contests, esp. rigged contests.

        I am happy with and hope for the success of all iphonographers. I say get out there and push your work, get a gallery show, perfect your craft, study the masters in all visual mediums, but don’t waste your time with contests and prizes or being a comment whore on flickr. This is art and art is work. I could announce a $10,000 prize tomorrow, to be awarded in January, to astroturf Pixels. Will I do that? You know I won’t.

        Once you take a picture off your iphone for processing, you are no longer an iphonographer, so I don’t see that I am doing anything more than taking a stand for the soul of the medium. Clearly unpopular to some, including you. If some sites allow computer manipulation, they are not really iphonography sites, are they? You post at a site like that, you give tacit approval. This is not acceptable.

        According to Apple (and me) (and all Pixels’ artists, as far as I know) “iPhone art is the revolutionary new art form that’s inspired by, shot with, and edited on the iPhone.” That is from Apple’s press release.

        So that is our faction.

        If people want to be on a photoshop contest site, great. Their work won’t appear in our public exhibits. It’s not a big deal. I hear from other Pixels artists how they are being pursued by one site in particular. They never write to me and, frankly, I do good work, too. I am repeating myself here, but they clearly want the prestige of Pixels’ artists, while catering to the lowest common denominator on their tacky wannabe site. They have resources I do not. I only have my taste and some relationships with a number of artists I respect and care about. And stubbornness. And clarity of vision.

        You want to be on a site where they post five Hipstamatic shots of a Chevrolet in a row, or the ten-millionth picture of a puking bum’s ass crack on a NYC street, and all this bullshit about a revolution, be my guest. Why do you keep coming here and talking shit? Your talking points are irrelevant to the real issues at hand.

        Actually, the golden days are still here in the form of the art on this site. Amazing stuff. The best on the planet. I intend to keep it that way for a long time.

        • I have never disagreed on any points but eligibility (which includes exclusivity) you make including the manipulation of images off the phone or my dislike of hipstamatic like apps, etc. Those are points you have brought into the dialogue.

          As far as the comment on contests. All of these are judged by someone or somebody and that is what I was referring to. As with others your event chooses certain images to be displayed which is necessary due to the volume of images. Nothing wrong with that, nature of the game.

          As alway good luck on your endeavor.

      • I do not appreciate your clouding the debate here, Dixon. All I ask is that people do not expect me to promote art in public spaces, exhibits that we have arranged, whether with Apple, or a gallery, or wherever, that they have also plastered on every other site out there. We have been burned by opportunists. We have championed artists, paid money out of our own pocket to display their art in public, only to have them trumpet and promote other sites and events without a mention of us. That really hurt.

        People can post anywhere they want. If they do, we don’t consider them for our events and exhibits. It’s simple. It’s fair. They can still post on Pixels if they want.

        It’s not exclusivity that you are whining about: it is about eligibility. We made a simple request. NO ONE has to observe it, but then, we don’t have to print and show their pictures in public. Just what is your problem with that?

        We will be selling prints again soon and of course we will share the proceeds with the artists. As I said, this is about relationships and I need to know that people are looking out for us the way we are looking out for them.

  • Just a question:

    what does it mean exactely:

    “Your image(s) must be exclusive to Pixels—The Art of the iPhone, your own website and/or your personal Flickr page.In other words, if you are posting your pictures on the contest sites or sites that allow computer editing of iphone images, do not submit or suggest them here for inclusion in the Apple events (or gallery shows), unless you have first removed them from those sites.”

    To which sites are you referring to??

    • If you aren’t on any sites with contests, prizes, or computer manipulation allowed, you have nothing to worry about. Please submit pictures for consideration!

      • You are more than welcome to submit pictures to the site, of course, that you have posted elsewhere, in contests or whatever. But not for consideration for our public exhibits or events.

        Everybody knows Pixels is the site of record for the global iphonographic movement. That is why other sites so desperately want Pixels artists on their sites. That is why I am drawing a line.

  • I think I have to be thankful to Knox for spreading out iPhoneography…I joined three of the exhibitions Knox prepared (Berkeley, Oakland and Kahbang Festival)…I never had to pay anything…I will definitely send my submission and if I am chosen I will be happy to contribute with all my thankfulness to Knox for all his hard work (and to all the people working with him)…I will be honored to give an helping hand but you know…Italy is just a little too far…but we will meet sooner or later!!!

  • Knox see no problem with people paying for prints. No reason you should incur that costs.

    What I dont like is exclusivity. Only people that get exclusivity from photographers are stock agencies like Getty (who has such with me for some images) and clients who pay a very large sum for those rights.

    Deeply appreciate your support and hard work in the past, but because of exclusivity I can no longer participate.

    Thanks again

    Dixon

    • I’m not asking for exclusivity, just first refusal, then exclusivity. Show me a gallery that will allow you to be represented elsewhere if they have put the time and effort into promoting you and your work as we at Pixels have done. It’s a relationship, and a commitment going both ways.

      I see no reason why other sites should be able to use images and artists from Pixels, the cream of the crop, for their prestige while at the same time playing to the lowest common denominator.

      Contests and computer manipulation degrade the art form and indicate to me a lack of respect for the art and the artists.

  • Thank you for your answer. You are right, I had no idea how much work, energy, and will were involved behind your site. I felt shameful discovering the reality you’re relating. But I just joined you a few days ago and could’nt be aware of all this ! But, who could ? I think now everybody should know what you’ve been doing ! I never wanted to offend anybody. Please don’t take it personal. I felt free to express myself. It was just a reaction after reading “apple-pay-VanGogh”. No accusations, no insults. If you felt so, please accept my apologies.

    Maybe I will submit some photos, yes. I am not a regular contibutor, I am totally broke, and I am not sure you will see my work now in such a kindly way !;-)

    By the way I really would like to know a little bit more about these events, in fact, as I told you. (I’ll check this by myself don’t worry…)

    Hoping to read from you later on, with less tension… ;-)

    • Thank you, Gilles. No offense taken. Everybody assumes Apple is paying us something and are shocked when they find out this is not the case. Why do you think Apple has thirty-four billion dollars in the bank??? :)

      Don’t worry, your remarks will not affect how I view your art. Just ask my friends when I don’t publish their pictures!

      It is one picture at a time, always!

      I look forward to seeing more work from you.

  • Asking people to pay for their prints for a presentation where no work will be sold seems fair to me. In a true gallery situation, the gallery usually pays for the prints, any framing, and all advertising and promotion but in exchange would get up to 50% of all sales.

    In the case of the Apple events, there is no possibility for Knox or anyone else to recoup their costs or time. So it is actually pretty silly that people would assume that he would keep footing the bill for promoting someone else’s work. If one is looking for a free ride, post and compete with the Flickr millions.

    This isn’t a Web site where advertising space could be sold to cover costs. It is a series of brick and mortar stores that happened to be owned and operated by the company responsible for the tech. This isn’t a Web site where people can upload a batch of crappy resolution images tweet about it and then sit back and wait for their friends to “Like” them. Printing images that make one’s work look good enough to take seriously or take home takes time.

    The costs for ink and paper can be somewhat expensive, but it is really the time involved with setting up, proofing and printing that costs the most. It can take 15 minutes just to print one image (not including setup time). If there is a problem, 30 minutes, another issue, 45 minutes, etc. Multiply this by a wide range of styles, sizes and image qualities and you don’t have to be too clever to realize that there is a reason why places like Blurb, Apple, Wal-Mart etc. charge for their services.

    That said, Knox, I think that you may wish to include the option of artists supplying their own prints. That way, as in my case, if they have their own printers or access to one, they can do the work at cost. You can always reserve the right to refuse the print incase someone sends you a color laser print or something.

    • Well, Jon … thank you for the post. Most people do not have a printer good enough to print their work. I would say at a minimum an Epson 3880 would be required. There is also a level of expertise required to blow these small images up and hold detail, color, etc., as you mentioned. I also like having a consistent paper, i.e., the Epson Ultra Premium Presentation matte.

      If people want to supply their prints, I have no problem, so long as it is an excellent print, arrives on time, is mounted properly, undamaged, and so on. But what if it isn’t? What do I do then?

      This isn’t just a question of print cost and quality control, it’s mounting and hanging costs as well. There is labor involved every step of the way. If people send a print in a tube, I still have to mount and trim it, get it to the show and get it back to the artist.

      I have seen over and over the reaction people have to the actual prints. This is why quality prints, presented properly, are always a priority with me. I have seen how others present the work, very tacky, with no respect for the art and the artists. I will never do that.

      In future gallery shows, I will cover printing costs, but there may be submission fees, which I have never required before. As far as framing goes … well … I just spoke to Jack Fischer of the Jack Fischer gallery in San Francisco who said that normally artists cover those costs, but there is some give-and-take, depending on a number of variables. I don’t know. I’m just trying to make this all work for everybody, learning and improvising as I go. And listening to suggestions from people like you. Thank you.

      • Yeah, that’s true about all the other time involved and certainly see your point. I was just thinking that it kind of sucks having invested in a $1,500 printer (3880), $400 in inks a couple hundred in Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Matte and a $400 calibration system and still having to pay for prints. But it sucks to be you too ;-)))).

        • Jon – You can send in your print if you want. :) I know it will be good. But I already HAVE a beautiful 13×19 print of Wichita Lineman and 17×22 of Anomaly. I’ll sell them one of these days & split the money with you. Maybe I’ll wait until you are in the Whitney.

  • I am very new on your site that I discovered lately. First, let me thank you for your work and thanks for being accepting my recent submisions.I really enjoyed you article “please no more shots of …” that I thought was fantastic, simply pushing us to the best photographic work. (it sounds like a “manifesto”, a foundation of something) I like your rules and will try to follow them.

    But I’m quite surprised by this new article. I don’t know If I will submit photos or not, this is not the point. I think it is quite weird to read photographers would have to pay their prints for the “only one related to Apple” events ! I don’t know what kind of relation you have with Apple but maybe you should ask them a little help. Apple, is one of the richest (or the richest ?) company of the world ! Articles about “what Apple could do with so much cash?” are everywhere in the press or on the web !

    (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2010/01/almost_40_billion_in_cash_what_is_apple_waiting_for.html )

    You paid the Iphone, you paid the Iphone apps, and now you should pay to allow Apple to show what you can do with all this ? Why not…

    It is also really funny you are evocating Van Gogh for this article. (is it ironic ?) Van Gogh is certainly the most famous artist who had been suffering from mysery all along his life. No, he was not buying his stuff. He was begging is brother Theo or anybody who could help to send him some money to buy his paints, brushes and so on ! He is also well known to be an artist whose work reaches now the highest prices (billions of dollars) while he died in total misery.

    But to be more positive I think it would be great to know a little bit more about those “Apple events” and these exhibitions, in a kindly way. How does it look like ? How many photos are exhibited ? What to be expected by the artists ? Are you selling prints there ? Why is Apple interested about that ? Why are you interested about that ? … ???

    Thank you.