Most expensive photo in the world

iamnothim

CabanSail wrote: »

Do I like it?

Yeah .... I actually do. It appeals to my taste for minimal and simple compositions.

Would I buy it?

No ....

My sentiments excactly. I'd say it actually looks very well in print up on a wall.
I wonder will people ever understand the concept of art being subjective.

Some internet forum reviews of classic photos...

DaireQuinlan

iamnothim wrote: »

My sentiments excactly. I'd say it actually looks very well in print up on a wall.
I wonder will people ever understand the concept of art being subjective.

Some internet forum reviews of classic photos...

Hah, that is a classic TOP post all right. Some good comments too ...

Monza76 wrote:

"Viewers with no true artistic "vision" will sometimes gravitate to photography because it appears to them to be a way to create art. They learn all of the rules and conventions of composition. They study the technical skills and master them. Finally they create consistent, predictable photographs that make for great family portraits and wonderful wall art but are generally uninspiring. These people, armed with an impressive array of textbook perfect analysis tools, then become critics."

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html#c116965038575557811

EyeBlinks

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Hah, that is a classic TOP post all right. Some good comments too ...

And one I actually agree with :eek:

Effects

smash wrote: »

Has it seriously got to the point where you have to say "Well it's a photo by *insert artist name* so it must be good"? because that's a crap attitude.

Everything's got to that point. Everything.

Mellor

I'll just state that its not really my thing.

smash wrote: »

Sorry but I just can't see anything endearing about it. Even as far as landscape photography goes, it's not an attractive landscape.

Has it seriously got to the point where you have to say "Well it's a photo by *insert artist name* so it must be good"? because that's a crap attitude.

You are missing the point.
It's not a landscape photography.
It's not even a photograph.

velopeloton wrote: »

If that was the only copy and the negative was destroyed, it would still be possible to photo that photo and print thousands of copies which no one could tell apart from the original.

That's nonsense. It woudl be very hard to do that and they could be told apart.
Plus, many painted originals have be copied over the years. And I don't been prints, I mean forgerys.





I think the problem here is that people are think in terms of digital media. The commetns refering pix.ie etc. Look at the dimensions.
This isn't a jpeg that sold for $4 million. Everyone here is looking at an image less than 1% of the original. That like looking at the mona lisa on a stamp.

I'm just saying that unless we are all in the room with this thing, we can't appriciate it.

Mellor

Also, to the question is it worth $4 million.

Last month is wasn't.
But paradoxially, now that it has sold for $4 million. It is worth slightly more than that.
This is art dealing at the highest level, being sold as the most expensive picture ever is worth a bundle in terms of value.

THe fact that we are even discussing it is added meta-value to it.

magicbastarder

Mellor wrote: »

You are missing the point.
It's not a landscape photography.
It's not even a photograph.

just wondering what you mean by this?

dinneenp

magicbastarder wrote: »

just wondering what you mean by this?

"There is no spoon."

Morrisseeee

People with too much money have no cents :rolleyes:
I think it's a case of the 'emperors new clothes' syndrome.

magicbastarder

do you think it's fine to pay that much for a painting? considering that a painting making €4m would not raise many eyebrows at all.

oshead

I have to laugh when I see one of these, "Is it art or just bullsh*t" discussions. It's neither...

It's just a con job, but a legitimate and quite legal one.... Someone with loads of money, with probably more sense than you or me and who operates on a completely different level than the average joe soap, needed to drop a wad of cash on this in order to become eligible for some ridiculous art investment Swiss tax break.... In 10 years time one of his/her mates will do the same on said piece of art and so continue the façade. :pac:

sineadw

oshead wrote: »

I have to laugh when I see one of these, "Is it art or just bullsh*t" discussions. It's neither...

It's just a con job, but a legitimate and quite legal one.... Someone with loads of money, with probably more sense than you or me and who operates on a completely different level than the average joe soap, needed to drop a wad of cash on this in order to become eligible for some ridiculous art investment Swiss tax break.... In 10 years time one of his/her mates will do the same on said piece of art and so continue the façade. :pac:

Huh? Why is it a facade? As magic said, would you feel the same way if it was a painting?

ScumLord

magicbastarder wrote: »

do you think it's fine to pay that much for a painting? considering that a painting making €4m would not raise many eyebrows at all.

I don't know, a painting is something different, it takes years to learn the skill and may take more years to complete the work, your also getting an image direct from another persons mind so to speak.

While the same can be said for photography up to a point, I just don't get these kind of things. If he'd put a lot of effort into a photoshop piece of art I'd be more inclined to say he deserves the money but looking at that photo I'm fairly certain it's the name attached that earns the high price. I wouldn't be surprised if there's many similar pictures that would never get considered simply because of the name attached.

superflyninja

Its just down to the fact that all we see is a tiny jpeg onscreen. And that jpeg at least seems to the common joe that it is ****,a useless boring photo that they could have done. Its not like a painting,the value or interest or the photo is not apparent. Look at this list http://www.businessinsider.com/andreas-gursky-photo-record-most-expensive-2011-11#16-robert-mapplethorpes-photo-of-andy-warhol-1987-sold-for-643200-in-2006-1 even looking at some of these on screen the beauty or uniqueness is apparent,not like the Gursky shot.

magicbastarder

it took years of experience and learning for that photographer to reach the point where he'd take the photo in question - it's certainly not something a newbie would consider taking.

when you are buying a painting, there's obviously a rarity or uniqueness element which adds to its value, in the investment value.
but if you're not buying as an investment, are you buying it purely as an image, or a status symbol, or another motivation?

and i'll echo the comments about seeing it in the flesh. it's not just down to scale; a good print will knock the socks off looking at a 72dpi image on a 20" screen. the amount of detail can vastly surpass what a computer monitor can show.

Freddie59

FFS. That photo is complete, unadulterated, tripe. People with more money than sense. I dunno.:rolleyes:

magicbastarder

if it's that bad, you should be able to take a better one and post it within the next 20 seconds.

magicbastarder

too late, you lose.

U.P.O.

Right click - Save as. $4million photo for free. Wohoo !

oshead

sineadw wrote: »

Huh? Why is it a facade? As magic said, would you feel the same way if it was a painting?

The facade is in relation to the amount of money being paid and thus the importance being attached to the work because of such gluttony.

farmerka

this is so funny thanks for your post how much will I get for this one

my pic

Gregor Samsa

farmerka wrote: »

this is so funny thanks for your post how much will I get for this one

my pic

$4.2 million. But only if you can print it sharply at 81 x 140 inches.

But seriously - comparing this pic to anything any of us have taken/could take/will take is missing the point. You could go to the exact spot that the Gursky stood at, hire the exact same equipment he used, wait until an overcast day comes along, take your photo and print it the exact same size and way that he's had it printed, and it still won't be worth anything near $4.3 million. Just as you could paint a black square the same as Malevich, and it will be worthless rather than priceless.

The value is not in the photograph.

kelly1

phutyle wrote: »

The value is not in the photograph.

Where is the value then? The modern art world is mad if you ask me.

Gregor Samsa

kelly1 wrote: »

Where is the value then?

In the fully executed product (not just a JPEG on a website), the reputation of the artist, the prevailing trends in the market, the weight you put on speculation of future trends in the market. Speculation on the future reputation of the artist. Stuff like that, that has nothing to do with the photographic image per se.

Basically it's "worth" 4.3 million because someone paid 4.3 million for it. They paid 4.3 million for it because they think they'll be able to sell it for more in the future. Time will tell whether they're right or not. And only then will we know whether it was really worth 4.3 million or not. And the cycle will continue.

kelly1 wrote: »

The modern art world is mad if you ask me.

The modern art market probably is alright. But then, if you could exploit that madness, buy something for a million now and sell it for 10 in a few years, wouldn't you?

kelly1

Yeah, not something I've thought a whole lot about (obviously) It's a commodity like any other. Artistic merit seems to be a secondary consideration.

Zillah

I skimmed the thread, don't think this has been mentioned:

According to the BBC he said "In the end I decided to digitalise the pictures and leave out the elements that bothered me". So it's a photoshop of a boring landscape. Apparently cloning away a park bench is "leaving out elements", as he so diplomatically puts it, as if they offered to be in his photograph and he declined the invitation.

****.

achtungbarry

To me, this yet another example of 'emperor's new clothes art'. I don't care if this photo is printed 3 miles wide on the side of Mount Everest with a mount made of gold. It is a ****e photograph.

It is the typical kind 'oh my god, it means something' pish you often see being fawned over in 'art' circles by circle jerking tools who actually seem to believe their own BS. In my opinion, this is a cr@p photo of a boring subject and no amount of 'oh my god it means something' BS can change that.

I do however admire the photographer for having the balls and neck to actually extract a pile of money for this piece of 'art'. Fair play to him. He knows that there is one born every minute and has exploited this perfectly.

I'm going to go lie down now.

jpb1974

extract a pile of money for this piece of 'art'

has exploited this perfectly

I'd like to know how he went about this... I think most people would.

achtungbarry

jpb1974 wrote: »

I'd like to know how he went about this... I think most people would.

It's simply a case of being in with the right people I'd say.

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote: »

So it's a photoshop of a boring landscape. Apparently cloning away a park bench is "leaving out elements", as he so diplomatically puts it, as if they offered to be in his photograph and he declined the invitation.

****.

that's a hell of a lot less intervention than people do for photos here which get fawned over. i'd love to see the flame wars here if people's work was described as **** for some photoshoppery...
again, i like it. doesn't set my world on fire.

Gregor Samsa

achtungbarry wrote: »

I do however admire the photographer for having the balls and neck to actually extract a pile of money for this piece of 'art'. Fair play to him. He knows that there is one born every minute and has exploited this perfectly.

The piece was sold by "a distinguished private German Collector" who owned it, not by the artist. So Gursky didn't exploit anything.

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5496716

jpb1974

The piece was sold by "a distinguished private German Collector" who owned it, not by the artist

Just as I was enjoying a mental image of Gursky singing "I've got friend in high places" whilst heading to his local credit union to make a very large deposit in his account.

sineadw

jpb1974 wrote: »

The piece was sold by "a distinguished private German Collector" who owned it, not by the artist

Just as I was enjoying a mental image of Gursky singing "I've got friend in high places" whilst heading to his local credit union to make a very large deposit in his account.

I very much doubt Gursky made *any* money on the sale whatsoever.

As an aside, any chance we could tone down the insulting remarks in the thread? It's getting very old..

Chorcai

Artistic skill went out the window years and years ago, around 1960 even before that with Marcel Duchamp. I'd like to know what the concept is behind the work, it seems like a polar opposite to his other work which is full on.

Promac

Art is art is art. If you don't understand it, it's probably much better art than you can come up with. If it sells for loads of money and you think it's sh1te, the problem is with your taste in art and not the artist's ability or the quality of the piece in question. If you haven't cultivated a taste in art in any way, never spent time in galleries, never read the books, etc - shut your piehole. The common opinion does nothing for wine, cheese, music, painting, photography, antique furniture or anything with any depth. Just because it doesn't grab you as soon as you look at it doesn't mean it's crap.

If you think art is about making a beautiful image then you're wrong. No two ways about it.

Swampy

That's it, I'm getting a good camera for Xmas.

I'd prefer some photos of the Victoria Seceret 2011 show over that landscape any day.

magicbastarder

as a 7 foot by 12 foot print on a wall in your house?

Kenny Logins

iamnothim wrote: »

Some internet forum reviews of classic photos...

That is fantastic.

EyeBlinks

Now that I hear he removed items from the scene he didn't want, I sooo wish he had left in the bloody swan for once.

Logical Fallacy

Simple test really, if you saw that photo on this forum in the Random Thread would you click like?

Nope.

Kenny Logins

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Simple test really, if you saw that photo on this forum in the Random Thread would you click like?

Nope.

I probably would ...but wouldn't buy a print of it at any price.

jpb1974

Simple test really, if you saw that photo on this forum in the Random Thread would you click like?

Yes... the ultimate measure of true photographic greatness.

AnCatDubh

The Telegraph's Florence Waters attempts to answer the question as to why Andreas Gursky's Rhine II is the most expensive photograph. Also worth reading is her earlier text on the image sale. The picture (pardon the pun) becomes a little clearer.

Maev Kennedy of the Guardian also writes about it.

For those interested in the artist - take a look here at a C4 program by ben lewis (sound is poor and get over the barbie girl remix). At about 21:30 you get to the story of the Rhine.

I think there is more to it than a first glance.

achtungbarry

From the Florence Waters article.

Florence Waters wrote:

That said, it could be a long time before a photograph comes along that will top Gursky’s print. This image is a vibrant, beautiful and memorable – I should say unforgettable - contemporary twist on Germany’s famed genre and favourite theme: the romantic landscape, and man’s relationship with nature.

This is the kind of rubbish I was referring to earlier. What utter unadulterated tripe. Some people really need to get over themselves. To me, a piece of art should stand on its own. If it needs a fancy explanation to describe its aim, it has failed.

Chorcai wrote: »

Artistic skill went out the window years and years ago, around 1960 even before that with Marcel Duchamp. I'd like to know what the concept is behind the work, it seems like a polar opposite to his other work which is full on.

Chorcai has hit the nail on the head here. Artistic skill is the key. To me, so much so called modern art is missing this. Fancy explanations (or BS as I would call it) seem to replace real artistic talent and skills. I am reminded of the "Arty Bollox Generator" posted here a while back.

Andreas Gursky wrote:

The desolate featureless landscape shown in Rhine II is no accident: Gursky explained in an interview that it is his favourite picture: "It says a lot using the most minimal means … for me it is an allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are."

Seriously............

You gotta admire him though for getting away with it.

humberklog

I'm with Gursky on this photo. I liked and agreed with Waters and Kennedy's articles too.

Artists (or photographers) are pretty poor on the whole (myself included) at discerning what is Good, what is Great and what is niether when it comes to other artists' work. Being able to critique another's work is a skill we don't need. Those in the jobs where it is an important skill need not know how to create.

Often's the case, when for example, an exhibition in The Gallery of Photography is shot down for being rubbish it stikes me that people are wearing a hat that doesn't quite fit properly. To glibly rubbish art critics, gallery boards, private buyers choices and other such people who are knowledgable and influential in art might be to be missing something of a beat. Something to be listened to.

There's always the pretty weak scurrying behind the rock of the arguement that art is subjective. It probably mostly is to plebs like me but to Art critics and other such movers and shakers (not creators) in the field it isn't.

Nor is it to multi millionaire buyers with an understanding of what is Great.

Gregor Samsa

achtungbarry wrote: »

To me, a piece of art should stand on its own.

See, the point is that art can't be viewed in isolation. There's a whole language, history and heritage behind art that has to be taken into account.

Take soccer as an analogy. I'm not into it at all. I don't understand it. I see a match, and if I don't see loads of goals, it's failed to me. Yet my mates that are into it can rave for hours about a nill-all draw. I look at midfielders, and wonder "what the hell are they all about?". Roy Keane is regarded by many as one of the greatest footballers of his generation (or all time, or whatever) - yet he only scored 75 goals out of 625 matches in his senior career (thank you Wikipedia). And he was worth millions. What's that all about? Sounds like BS to me.

What it's all about is that I don't understand soccer, and I'm a casual observer - looking in from the outside, and not really knowing what the hell is going on.

It's the same with art. What some here have described as "artistic ability" - which is really technical ability - is just one layer of art: maybe akin to the goal scoring layer of football. The rest of it - the really important part in the greater scheme of things - are the non-technical aspects. The vision, the language, the theory, where the piece fits into the heritage of art.

Someone mentioned Duchamp earlier. The whole point of Duchamp was to remove the technical layer, and just concentrate on all the rest of it. Duchamp was part of the Dada and Surrealist movemements - famous for their manifestos. The theory behind what they were doing is more important than the actual artwork. To a casual observer, who isn't aware of this, a urinal or bicycle wheel is just junk. And having it in a gallery is just BS. But to someone who understands what Duchamp was trying to achieve - how he got to a point of putting a urinal in a gallery as an art piece, it not only makes sense - it's actually genius. The important thing to note is that if you or I just came along and put a urinal in a gallery, it wouldn't be genius. Motivation is everything in art.

It's understandable that casual observers don't "get" art. Previously, artistic vision and technical merit were intertwined. A casual observer can look at a Carrivaggio painting, and say "that's a good painting - the people look realistic, and the lighting is dramatic". But those qualities are not actually what make his paintings great pieces of art. They're just the technical layer - the craft. What makes them great art is the nuances, the language used in the poses and expressions and other elements. The place that the painting takes in history.

It's the exact same with "modern art" - just that often the technical layer is removed or obscured. Which has ended up making some art inaccessible to casual observers, but hasn't dented it's value to those that have invested time into understanding whats going on.

If you're only an English speaker, and hear two people speaking in Finnish, you might be excused for thinking they were talking BS - because you don't understand the language. It's the same with art. Don't knock a language just because you don't understand it.

Eirebear

Just as an aside, i wonder how much Gursky himself made from the original sale/commision of the image, i bet it was nowhere near the price it sold for at auction!

cc4life

The photographer should just get the film and have loads of the photo made up..he'd make billions

Happyman42

Borderfox wrote: »

Needs a rock in the foreground

This better?

magicbastarder

achtungbarry wrote: »

To me, a piece of art should stand on its own. If it needs a fancy explanation to describe its aim, it has failed.

you make it sound as if context is a bad thing. surely it's additive, rather than subtractive?