Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: pixjohn on November 11, 2011, 02:12:10 pm
-
They say a picture is worth a a thousand words, this picture is worth $4.3 million words.
I am missing something abut this picture?
http://news.yahoo.com/record-photo-sold-auction-set-nyc-182745446.html
-
Nope, if you thought that it looked like a million other photos on Flickr that's because it does.
-
Actually, it looks like what 99% of people would delete after taking it. It just goes to show that the art world really has nothing to do with art, and everything to do with being hyped by the right people.
-
Hello,
Graham oh so true. I have the opportunity a few years back to travel around New Zealand photographing the work of Ralph Hotere. I visited art galleries and private collections and came to the conclusion that the majority of the work in them was crap and I am not putting Hotere's work in that category at all. I have seen art work done by high school students better the some of the so called art I have seen.
http://www.johnleechgallery.co.nz/artists/ralphhotere.asp
There is a saying “Any one can be an artist its convincing every one else that you are”
That’s my view.
Simon
-
In my opinion art is a reflection about the society you are living in.
And that is a sad reflection on the state of our present society (and Gursky's photographs).
Eric
-
Sour grapes, anyone?
-
No opinion on that image.
I can say that I saw the Gursky show at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, perhaps 5-7 years ago? Absolutely stunning work, I was totally blown away by it!
The huge exhibition catalog, with 8x12 in prints of the images looked like bad 12K JPEGs compared to the actual images.
The same was true of the Thomas Struth show, as well as the Jeff Wall show. I was particularly predisposed to dislike Wall's work, because of all the post-modern "blah de blah"hype surrounding it. I have to say - I was 100% wrong!
Now there was an Ansel Adams show at the Art Institute at the same time as the Wall show. Left there with no emotion, no feeling, just really bored to death by the Adams work.
And Duchamp .... I spent a full week at the Philadelphia Museum of Art , every night for hours, looking at his work. Then years reading everything I could get my hands on during the 1990's. Finally started to really grasp the many complex aspects of his career - including Étant donnés...
After all that, I have to conclude that the title of one book about him - "Artist of the Century" - is dead on accurate. Incredible vision, predated the complex directions of later art by almost 50-75 years ...
So ... Easy to say anything about "art in general." But when it comes to specific artists, there are many who have done incredible work that I admire, and who have been a great inspiration and who have added value to my life. I don't care too much about the "art world" beyond that.
Cheers!
Michael
-
Take a look at that woman: http://www.lisesarfati.com/index.shtml
Her pictures also could look like banal flickr uploads, but they aren't really.
You look at a pic out of a context and because it looks banal, the "I could do it" or my "sister in law could do it", doesn't give it any value.
It is not, or never the pic itself.
Everybody can do a black dot on a white canvas, therefore it should not be considered as art. But this is not, and never has been what art is about.
In fact it depends on who is doing it, why (the intention), how and the relevance in the context it appears.
Lise Sarfati is not one more flickr photographer because behind her imagery, there is a severe reflection on social codes, there is an conscient intention and repetitive investigation
on the same content. Those are not pictures without purpose, but carefully planed working path.
Then, I do not understand why it is so shocking that an image can be bought at an high price, wether it is a speculative intention or a real emotional response from a wealphy buyer, and it looks
more normal that people are actually buying Diamonded Leicas or Ferraris Hasselblads collectors.
Those people, like Gursky, rarely take pictures for taking pictures.
By the way, a quick meditation if I may: I've noticed that the more talented photographers I ever met, never take their cameras without a clear intention. They generally do not shot out of their work and generally have a precise idea about in what their work consist of.
Completly the opposite of the "I shootitall" nervous culture we are living in.
The definition of art, and the value of art can not be limited to what appears to one "correct" or "real art", like it happens in religion. There is no "real" art as such. And there is no logical monetary value, therefore it can be speculative, and it does very often.
So, if you you take that Gursky image, take a ruler, you'll see that the composition obeys to a fractal pattern and that the distribution of the h lines matches excatly without any centimeter error, to a mathematical and geometrical proportional scale. This is so precise that it can not be without purpose. Bingo.
It's not, I take my camera, wait for the sunrise to get a decent light and may have a printable pic on my Epson_. This is something else...
-
+1 everything Fred said. Plus ...
I don't understand the controversy surrounding the sale of this image. Seems like a lot of sour grapes to me.
It is especially ironic considering that not many have actually seen a Gursky print in real-life and this is a site focused on landscape shooters who worship THE PRINT as the ultimate expression of the photographer's art.
I may not like all contemporary photographic art but I have been fortunate enough to view exhibitions by Gursky, Wall, Crewdson, Kawauchi, Demand, Sugimoto etc. Even if you don't like the work, your appreciation of it will change once you view the full-sized prints in real-life. Everything looks banal when viewed on the web — this is the curse of flickr and the iPhone generation.
Also, I think the bulk of the jealousy is misguided: This Gursky print was sold on the secondary market, so Gursky sees zero of the sale proceeds. Does that make everyone feel better? Why do photographers always rag on other photographers? We are our own worst enemy.
-
I must say the the small image we see probably doesn't do justice to what I believe to be a poster size original which is the one that was sold.
I am not excited too much about the image itself but most of us would not see these patterns as he has cleverly composed in the shot, the strip of green on the other side of the river looks as if it were stripped out of the frontside and displaced to the top. Then the proportions of sky, water and grass are flawless as remarked by fredjeang.
This pathway on the Rhine River is where Gursky does his jogging and he must have seen and thought about this over quite a long period so nothing by hasard.
Good for his pocket and reputation...
-
So, if you you take that Gursky image, take a ruler, you'll see that the composition obeys to a fractal pattern and that the distribution of the h lines matches excatly without any centimeter error, to a mathematical and geometrical proportional scale. This is so precise that it can not be without purpose. Bingo.
It's not, I take my camera, wait for the sunrise to get a decent light and may have a printable pic on my Epson_. This is something else...
+1. Agree 100%.
On a lighter note, I don't see how that fractal pattern has anything to do with the subject Gursky was shooting; but I wish we had these exhibitions in India. Standing in front of the real thing might really be like standing in front of the real thing.
-
I have stood in front of some of Gursky's prints. They were huge and, like the one in this thread, "minimalistic." But I found nothing exciting about any of the ones I saw, and I have no interest in putting one of them up on one of my wall at home.
Would I accept one as a gift? You betcha! And I'd put it up for auction instantly.
I've also seen an exhibit of Wall's, which I went to prepared to hate (being the grumpy old man that I am). But I found them quite stunning and I found myself pulled into each image and spending a lot of time exploring each.
Beauty --- as well as "Art" --- is in the eye of the beholder. I can't really explain why Wall works for me but Gursky doesn't. That's just my hangup.
Eric
-
Well said, Fred!
-
It's also been extensively photoshopped to remove the buildings in the background, there are some on this forum who would refused to even call it a photograph because of that. I like the fact that this with this sale, $4 mill says 'who cares what the purists and grumpy old men think!'
-
The thing I love out a still photograph like this Gursky image is the viewer can interpret their own vision of the work.
Unlike films where most of the message is roadmapped a still image for the sake of only the image leaves so much to the imagination.
Is it worth 4 million? yep (That's Texan for yes), because somebody paid that.
Does it bother me he got 4 million? Nope, ... I wish he'd recieved 44 million because it only raises the bar of what most of us can ask for our work.
Personally I think it's a beautiful photograph and will spawn a lot of imitators.
IMO
BC
-
Suggest looking at a variety of his other images: http://www.matthewmarks.com/artists/andreas-gursky/selected-works/# I did not really understand what he was about until I looked at this photo in context. That said, I like a number of his other images better than this one.
-
I have seen most of those linked images in exhibition. It is quite an experience to stand in front of them, comprarable to standing in front of any other work on art.
That is, you have never "really" seen a Monet, etc. until you have seen the actual painting. I think the same is true with Gursky, given that this image is actually 11 feet x 7 feet in size - call it 3.3 x 2 meters. This image just totally blew me away when I saw it. The detail goes down to a level to staisfy someone looking at it with a loupe.
99 Cent
1999
C-Print mounted to plexiglass in artist's frame
81 1/2 x 132 5/8 inches; 207 x 336.5 cm
http://www.matthewmarks.com/artists/andreas-gursky/selected-works/#/images/8/
-
i'm a big fan of AG but for the life of me i am try to figure out what this means:
"So, if you you take that Gursky image, take a ruler, you'll see that the composition obeys to a fractal pattern and that the distribution of the h lines matches excatly without any centimeter error, to a mathematical and geometrical proportional scale. This is so precise that it can not be without purpose."
What do fractals have to do with it?!
rh
-
Amazing. I'm so glad it sold for that much. Arts value is fixed by the person buying it.
Who cares what it means to anyone else.
I'm so glad that photography as an art form can fetch these brilliant prices. Hopefully they will continue to rise.
-
What a bunch of complete nonsense.
First, those of you claiming "sour grapes" are way off track and this is such a tired response it only merits a response if that response shows criticism for lack of thought. The comments have been to understand, to express an opinion. Nothing more. A little bit of intellectual honesty would go a long way in such discussions.
I looked at this image and my first response was "it looks like something my wife would delete from her point and shoot." I only looked the first time not because it visually caught my attention, but because the price it sold for caught my attention. I looked a second time and saw nothing to change my initial opinion. To my eyes it's boring and lacking in so many ways it's not worth getting in to.
I am interested in the back story. There much be a reason this image fetched 4.3 million and this reason holds far more interest to me.. than the image itself.
Its immaterial how nice his other works is. An image selling for 4.3 million should be able to stand on it's own merits.
And it doesn't matter to me how big this print is, or how much detail it holds. A large highly detailed image of a fresh elephant dropping is still just that. An elephant dropping. Which btw holds more interest than this image. To me.
Get a ruler out? Really? Must be a new way to appreciate art I've never heard of, which frankly wouldn't surprise me. But I'm not interested to get a ruler out and measure anything. This image doesn't inspire me to do so.
I understand a Buggati Veybron Grand Sport at roughly 2.5 million. I can appreciate it's art, it's engineering, it's function. I can understand the visceral emotions it brings at the base level.
(http://www.desktopwallpaperspace.com/pics/pic-9470-1440x900.jpg)
I can't understand this image. And I'd bet money you could choose an image of Flickr by random and put it head to head in a public taste test and the random Flickr image would win.
If it makes some of you feel better to tell the rest of us "we don't get it" then fine. You've found a value in a rather boring image. But it's not going to make me pause for a second. It is what it is.
-
(http://www.thelowry.com/images/shop/products/prints_0060_big.jpg)
Laurence Stephen Lowry The Sea 1963
http://www.thelowry.com/gifts-and-souvenirs/prints-and-limited-editions/the-sea-1963
-
(http://www.thelowry.com/images/shop/products/prints_0060_big.jpg)
Laurence Stephen Lowry The Sea 1963
http://www.thelowry.com/gifts-and-souvenirs/prints-and-limited-editions/the-sea-1963
Heck I like this picture a lot better, I'm actually a big fan of Lowry, his rendition of people has been an inspiration to me. I grew up in Salford as he did.
-
What a bunch of complete nonsense.
First, those of you claiming "sour grapes" are way off track and this is such a tired response it only merits a response if that response shows criticism for lack of thought. The comments have been to understand, to express an opinion. Nothing more. A little bit of intellectual honesty would go a long way in such discussions.
I looked at this image and my first response was "it looks like something my wife would delete from her point and shoot." I only looked the first time not because it visually caught my attention, but because the price it sold for caught my attention. I looked a second time and saw nothing to change my initial opinion. To my eyes it's boring and lacking in so many ways it's not worth getting in to.
I am interested in the back story. There much be a reason this image fetched 4.3 million and this reason holds far more interest to me.. than the image itself.
Its immaterial how nice his other works is. An image selling for 4.3 million should be able to stand on it's own merits.
And it doesn't matter to me how big this print is, or how much detail it holds. A large highly detailed image of a fresh elephant dropping is still just that. An elephant dropping. Which btw holds more interest than this image. To me.
Get a ruler out? Really? Must be a new way to appreciate art I've never heard of, which frankly wouldn't surprise me. But I'm not interested to get a ruler out and measure anything. This image doesn't inspire me to do so.
I understand a Buggati Veybron Grand Sport at roughly 2.5 million. I can appreciate it's art, it's engineering, it's function. I can understand the visceral emotions it brings at the base level.
(http://www.desktopwallpaperspace.com/pics/pic-9470-1440x900.jpg)
I can't understand this image. And I'd bet money you could choose an image of Flickr by random and put it head to head in a public taste test and the random Flickr image would win.
If it makes some of you feel better to tell the rest of us "we don't get it" then fine. You've found a value in a rather boring image. But it's not going to make me pause for a second. It is what it is.
Steve, Gursky is been in the art circuit for ages.
The biggest world museums are hanging his work. I personally saw some of his picture and they really impress. Is a recognized artist exactly like Picasso was. You may not like all Picasso work, or none of his work, it's fine. I personally do not like Ansel Adams. I do not understand him, I do not vibrate with his work. But it's not because it doesn't touch me that I can't recognize the importance and the talent.
If I pointed the composition, is only to stress that there is a clear intention and that the guy doesn't just take a picture. I mean the horizon is exactly in the middle and the composition obeis to a so precise pattern that it can not be unintentional. I do not need the ruler, because I have a fine arts studdy and that's something you end to see simply because they train you to see it. I draw the lines for the people who are less trained to see those things immediatly, and it was just to point that there is a systematic intention in his work and that this image is more than just "I shoot the river where I do my jogging".
You rarely hang your work in all the ww museums just because you're a good sailer, or you have a good agent. This image, IMO is a perfection in terms of composition and rythm, and this perfection gives it a sort of "divine" dimension, or in other words, he makes the big exists within a simple subject.
You can say that this pic would be one your wife would delete. But the reality is that Gursky saw something there and didn't delete it. If people are giving him credit as one of the most important photographer today is because they think his vision and expression have value. A lot of value, included monetary.
But I have never criticized the fact that this image is not touching people. What I do yes criticize, is a certain form of arrogance in some posts because somebody doesn't like it. It remind me the reaction of some of the photographic comunity about Mario Testino, that he is where he is just because he has contacts.
Just my 2 cents thoughts.
-
... First, those of you claiming "sour grapes" are way off track and this is such a tired response...
Steve,
I will be the first to admit that "sour grapes" is a tired response.
But isn't it equally tired to get on a soapbox and yell through the bullhorn how you (rhetorical you) do not get it? How a five-year old, your mother-in-law, your dumb cousin could do the same in five minutes or less (why didn't they?). And this is not restricted to Gursky or photography. It works for most of the modern art. Take, for example, "White on White (http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=80385)" painting by Kazimir Malevich in MoMA (NY) collection.
If you (again, rhetorical you) do not get it, what is the point of broadcasting your ignorance to the rest of the world as a badge of honor? As they say, it is better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you are stupid, then open it and remove any doubt.
I may or may not get it either (or if I do, I still may not like it), but i get it that there are people who do. Why immediately hurl insults in their direction: "art world really has nothing to do with art", "crap", "rich guy showing off", to cite a few "thoughtful" responses.
When I was growing up, displaying your ignorance publicly was not considered a virtue. I guess a lot has changed since the Internet.
... I'd bet money you could choose an image of Flickr by random and put it head to head in a public taste test and the random Flickr image would win...
Since when has a mass taste been the supreme measure of artistic value? If that would be the case, the most valuable artistic creation of all times would be... "Star Wars" movie?
-
Fred and Slobodan,
Great responses but your not going to change anybody's mind when it comes to art and money, especially on a forum that leans towards the technical aspect of photography.
Let's face it some people are overpowered by Testino's work, some just see a skinny girl shot on polaroid . . . to each his own.
Same with Gursky, some see a supermarket, some see art.
The point I was trying to make is any photograph that goes for huge money raises the bar for everyone, the artist, the serious professional and even the snapshot photographer.
For my entire adult life, I've heard photographers say "I could shoot that". Maybe, maybe not, but as Slobodan says, why didn't they.
Shooting it is one thing, but working to put your self in a position where someone will pay you to shoot it is a whole 'nother animal.
It's funny, we use to have an assistant that had a constant line of "I'd never pay that much for a _______." He might be talking about cameras, cars, art, houses, it didn't matter, just every hour you'd hear it.
Finally our studio manager laughed and said of course you won't pay $85,000 for a M series BMW, you don't have $85,000 so BMW doesn't care what you think. When you get the money, they'll start listening.
IMO
BC
-
Steve, Gursky is been in the art circuit for ages.
If I pointed the composition, is only to stress that there is a clear intention and that the guy doesn't just take a picture. I mean the horizon is exactly in the middle and the composition obeis to a so precise pattern that it can not be unintentional. I do not need the ruler, because I have a fine arts studdy and that's something you end to see simply because they train you to see it. I draw the lines for the people who are less trained to see those things immediatly, and it was just to point that there is a systematic intention in his work and that this image is more than just "I shoot the river where I do my jogging".
You can say that this pic would be one your wife would delete. But the reality is that Gursky saw something there and didn't delete it. If people are giving him credit as one of the most important photographer today is because they think his vision and expression have value. A lot of value, included monetary.
But I have never criticized the fact that this image is not touching people. What I do yes criticize, is a certain form of arrogance in some posts because somebody doesn't like it. It remind me the reaction of some of the photographic comunity about Mario Testino, that he is where he is just because he has contacts.
Just my 2 cents thoughts.
Hi Fred -
I'm sorry I don't have an "art studdy" degree so I cannot understand this great masterpiece. Poppycock. (my uneducated great grandfather was fond of that one)
a. I don't care if Gursky invented the camera. This picture does not stand by itself in my opinion and like I said, I'd bet money we could take a random image off Flicker and post it openly on the internet against this one.. and the vast majority would choose the image off Flickr.
b. And don't bother, if you need to "educate" us all on composition to be able to enjoy an otherwise boring image.. then what's the point? I can take all the culinary classes I want and it's not going to make me like the taste of a durian any more than I do now. Not that I don't appreciate the education, I do. I just don't appreciate the condescension that went along with it.
c. Arrogance is defined many ways my friend. Like putting up such a boring picture and expecting people to be taken to it just because the guys an important photographer. Or.. trying to educate those who "don't get it" in hope they do. Art is art. Some will see it, some never will. Sorry, but this particular image is boring and to me.. holds no artistic merit.
-
Steve,
I will be the first to admit that "sour grapes" is a tired response.
But isn't it equally tired to get on a soapbox and yell through the bullhorn how you (rhetorical you) do not get it? How a five-year old, your mother-in-law, your dumb cousin could do the same in five minutes or less (why didn't they?). And this is not restricted to Gursky or photography. It works for most of the modern art. Take, for example, "White on White" painting by Kazimir Malevich in MoMA (NY) collection.
If you (again, rhetorical you) do not get it, what is the point of broadcasting your ignorance to the rest of the world as a badge of honor? As they say, it is better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you are stupid, then open it and remove any doubt.
I may or may not get it either (or if I do, I still may not like it), but i get it that there are people who do. Why immediately hurl insults in their direction: "art world really has nothing to do with art", "crap", "rich guy showing off", to cite a few "thoughtful" responses.
When I was growing up, displaying your ignorance publicly was not considered a virtue. I guess a lot has changed since the Internet.
Since when has a mass taste been the supreme measure of artistic value? If that would be the case, the most valuable artistic creation of all times would be... "Star Wars" movie?
1. But you were the first to use it when people were only asking questions. You admit it, but you don't apologize for it. Shame on you.
2. You my friend hurled the very first insult of this thread with your "sour grapes" comment and you continue in this response with a rather lame theory that if someone doesn't "get it" or "see it my way" then they are indeed ignorant. Nonsense. Third grade logic at best.
3. No, nothing has changed. Some still do it but are even more ignorant in that they don't realize that which they've done. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. Until your insults started (and continued) all anyone was doing was asking questions, trying to understand. At least Fred tried to explain. I don't agree with him and I have the right to disagree strongly, but I can't fault his intentions. Your intentions I fault. You are being rude, condescending, and a bit more than full of yourself.
4. What is the supreme measure of art? You tell us. And until you do, mass appeal will do nicely.
-
Fred and Slobodan,
The point I was trying to make is any photograph that goes for huge money raises the bar for everyone, the artist, the serious professional and even the snapshot photographer.
For my entire adult life, I've heard photographers say "I could shoot that". Maybe, maybe not, but as Slobodan says, why didn't they.
Finally our studio manager laughed and said of course you won't pay $85,000 for a M series BMW, you don't have $85,000 so BMW doesn't care what you think. When you get the money, they'll start listening.
IMO
BC
a. In what way exactly? Explain to me how this image is going to raise the bar. Give me one solid example using someone on this forum for instance. And then give me an example in general.
b. "I could have invented the drive up window" (actually I know now very rich family who did..) or "I could have shot this image" only means they think they could have done this. Why is so much read into why they did or didn't? Isn't the true arrogance really in trying to find something negative in someones rather innocuous comments?
c. A great example of what I was talking about in 'b.' above. An arrogant person would make such a comment. A smart, inventive, or otherwise gifted person would listen to what the man has to say.. and then see if they could market a car that he would pay for. Henry Ford comes to mind.
-
... An image selling for 4.3 million should be able to stand on it's own merits ...
There is some subject matter or composition that would suddenly be "worth" $4.3 on "merit", but not this?
Huh?
-
Explain to me how this image is going to raise the bar.
... someone paid $4.3 million for a photograph - more than anyone, ever. There's your raised bar.
-
... Until your insults started (and continued) all anyone was doing was asking questions, trying to understand...
Ok, lets see those "innocuous questions" that were posted before I used "sour grapes" (sour grapes = insult? Really!?):
- "it looked like a million other photos on Flickr"
- "it looks like what 99% of people would delete after taking it"
- "the art world really has nothing to do with art, and everything to do with being hyped"
- "crap"
- "art work done by high school students better the some of the so called art"
- "Any one can be an artist its convincing every one else that you are"
- "a sad reflection on the state of our present society"
If these are just "innocuous questions", and not statements, meant as a condescending criticism of both modern art and Gursky, then, my friend, we live on different planets.
I admire Fred's educational attempts. I do. But I also consider them futile. I surely do not expect people to become educated in modern arts by reading a few otherwise well intended and well written forum posts. Although, given the current era of instant experts, or, as I call them "PhDs in googling", I would not be surprised that someone does expect so.
-
Actually, it looks like what 99% of people would delete after taking it. It just goes to show that the art world really has nothing to do with art, and everything to do with being hyped by the right people.
sounds like the we know it all "my daughter could have painted that picasso."
why just didn't she?
and the we know it all free market bashing, of cause. i hear it mostly from the less successful...
-
Understanding art reqires an education; art has always been elitist, always will be .
Gursky's work, however, is very accessible , even if one has only superficial knowledge of the history of photography and fine art .
It's not rocket science , but not for the 'intellectually lazy' either . Understanding art is a skill that needs to be developed .
I don't like this particular image, maybe because I lived near the location and always hated it there ...
I also find it utterly boring - which is not necessarily a bad thing.
In the context of Gursky's body of work, and contemporary German art photography, the image makes a lot of sense, though .
-
Is it possible that the actual installation on plexi glass is a totally different experience from the jpeg available on the internet?
-
Is it possible that the actual installation on plexi glass is a totally different experience from the jpeg available on the internet?
That is why I chose not to comment on that specific image. Because I have had experience with about 60-70 other Gursky images that I have seen in person. Quite a different experience than seeing them in a magazine or online.
Sort of like knowing how the jury should have voted, whether you agree with their vote or not, from a 5 sentance summary in the newspaper. Kind of had to be there .... :D
-
For my entire adult life, I've heard photographers say "I could shoot that". Maybe, maybe not, but as Slobodan says, why didn't they.
BC
Why does it take 5 photographers to change a light bulb? Well, you need one to change the bulb and the other four to stand there and say "I could have done that, and better too".
I don't 'like' the image either - but that is my problem - and maybe 'liking' it is to miss the point entirely. The fact is that a certain group of people do like, and value, this Low Graphic Style or New Topographics stuff and are prepared to pay big bucks for prints. They are not the least interested in what others think, it's their money and their taste, that's as far as it goes. Gursky is one of the leading proponents of a particular genre of art photography that is considered valuable by some people. Good for them.
Don't get it? Fine, move on, nothing to see here...
-
I don't 'like' the image either - but that is my problem - and maybe 'liking' it is to miss the point entirely. The fact is that a certain group of people do like, and value, this Low Graphic Style or New Topographics stuff and are prepared to pay big bucks for prints. They are not the least interested in what others think, it's their money and their taste, that's as far as it goes. Gursky is one of the leading proponents of a particular genre of art photography that is considered valuable by some people. Good for them.
Don't get it? Fine, move on, nothing to see here...
Wheres the 'Like' Button?.....
Oh thats right...
+1 ;D
-
I am so tired of this discussion....
my kid could do that... but unfortunately they don't, so I still have to pay for their schooling...
-
Nope, if you thought that it looked like a million other photos on Flickr that's because it does.
+1
-
I think it is an incredible image. No opinion on its worth in terms of dollars.
-
I think the image is wonderful..right where I am at visually for my personal work and it would have fit seamlessly into a show I had in may.. 18 photographs revolving around water..and it would have been one of the 14 not sold..even at my ridiculous price of 200 (including 30x24 frame!)..for many reasons that really are pointless.. Life is not fair, or equal, or logical, get over it.. and when it comes to art, it really all goes out the window.
-
Why does it take 5 photographers to change a light bulb? Well, you need one to change the bulb and the other four to stand there and say "I could have done that, and better too".
I don't 'like' the image either - but that is my problem - and maybe 'liking' it is to miss the point entirely. The fact is that a certain group of people do like, and value, this Low Graphic Style or New Topographics stuff and are prepared to pay big bucks for prints. They are not the least interested in what others think, it's their money and their taste, that's as far as it goes. Gursky is one of the leading proponents of a particular genre of art photography that is considered valuable by some people. Good for them.
Don't get it? Fine, move on, nothing to see here...
+10!!!
-
There is some subject matter or composition that would suddenly be "worth" $4.3 on "merit", but not this?
Huh?
I'm not sure you're understanding me correctly.. so lets try this. Tell me what you see in this image that makes it worth $100 much less 4.3m? Aside from the artists background and reputation.
-
... someone paid $4.3 million for a photograph - more than anyone, ever. There's your raised bar.
So cost along raised your bar on "art?" Okay, I see where you're coming from. I can't agree, but I see your mindset.
-
Ok, lets see those "innocuous questions" that were posted before I used "sour grapes" (sour grapes = insult? Really!?):
- "it looked like a million other photos on Flickr"
- "it looks like what 99% of people would delete after taking it"
- "the art world really has nothing to do with art, and everything to do with being hyped"
- "crap"
- "art work done by high school students better the some of the so called art"
- "Any one can be an artist its convincing every one else that you are"
- "a sad reflection on the state of our present society"
If these are just "innocuous questions", and not statements, meant as a condescending criticism of both modern art and Gursky, then, my friend, we live on different planets.
I admire Fred's educational attempts. I do. But I also consider them futile. I surely do not expect people to become educated in modern arts by reading a few otherwise well intended and well written forum posts. Although, given the current era of instant experts, or, as I call them "PhDs in googling", I would not be surprised that someone does expect so.
Yes, these were responses. Honest responses. You and others here had an opportunity to direct the flow of conversation to something educational and pleasant. But you did not. Education comes in all forms and learning on forums is just one way, but it is a way. Well intentioned polite responses, but no one seems interested in that. What they seem interested in is labeling. "I'm an educated artist and you are not." If you like I could educate you exactly what this sounds like. Even if it is already obvious.
Do you notice you haven't once supported this image with a comment an educated "artist" would make. All you've done is cast snide insults?
-
Why does it take 5 photographers to change a light bulb? Well, you need one to change the bulb and the other four to stand there and say "I could have done that, and better too".
I don't 'like' the image either - but that is my problem - and maybe 'liking' it is to miss the point entirely. The fact is that a certain group of people do like, and value, this Low Graphic Style or New Topographics stuff and are prepared to pay big bucks for prints. They are not the least interested in what others think, it's their money and their taste, that's as far as it goes. Gursky is one of the leading proponents of a particular genre of art photography that is considered valuable by some people. Good for them.
Don't get it? Fine, move on, nothing to see here...
This all makes sense until the last line. You don't like the image either. But isn't discussion as to why someone doesn't like an image as important as why someone does? And why should anyone be insulted for expressing an opinion? If I post an image I don't expect only the people who "get it" to comment, and the rest to move on. I expect feedback from all quarters.
-
So, Steve, expressing one's opinion so eloquently ("crap") is, in your world, just a "honest, polite, educational, and pleasant response"... while using the words "sour grapes" is an insult? We indeed live on different planets.
-
For me personaly, forgeting about the artist's reputation and technique, this image touch me in 3 ways.
- I find it perfectly composed, the way the horizontal lines are distributed creates a rythm that is a tribute to perfection, or absolute.
- I like the rigor, minimal and severity of the overall image and subtle tones.
- The emptiness and simplicity.
IMO, without talking about the fact that it is Gursky, this is a very fine image.
I would certainly hang that picture in my home. Would I pay that much money for it? No, because I simply do not have it.
If I had it, maybe.
-
To me Gursky's Rhine image shows a lot about the world we live in… the society and culture we live in. It shows much more about us as human beeings than any portrait I've ever seen.
At the same the image also (intentionally) tells a lot about the limitations of photography and about the meaning of photography as a "reproducing" image making tool.
The longer you watch it and the deeper you dive into the image the more dimensions you'll explore… specifically since the image is extremely minimalistic.
Well … again and again I am surprised how much photographers are hostile to art.
why should anyone be insulted for expressing an opinion? If I post an image I don't expect only the people who "get it" to comment, and the rest to move on. I expect feedback from all quarters.
quite legitimate objection.
However… always exactly those people who say "I could have shot this image as well" (or even better: "my wife could have shot this") or "you can see the same on flickr a million times" and so forth are bothered by art and the prices some people pay for art.
Really … I've never seen such a discussion anywhere on the internet (or elsewhere) started by someone who loves and understands art. Those discussions are always initiated by people who don't understand what art is about at all. Shockingly often by "photographers".
-
For me personaly, forgeting about the artist's reputation and technique, this image touch me in 3 ways.
- I find it perfectly composed, the way the horizontal lines are distributed creates a rythm that is a tribute to perfection, or absolute.
- I like the rigor, minimal and severity of the overall image and subtle tones.
- The emptiness and simplicity.
IMO, without talking about the fact that it is Gursky, this is a very fine image.
I would certainly hang that picture in my home. Would I pay that much money for it? No, because I simply do not have it.
If I had it, maybe.
+1
P.S. You see, Steve, I "can support this image with a comment an educated artist would make" ;D
-
You and others here had an opportunity to direct the flow of conversation to something educational and pleasant. But you did not. Education comes in all forms and learning on forums is just one way, but it is a way.
I promised myself I wouldn't comment on this topic again, but once more into the breach ...
Steve, you are being slightly disingenuous by expecting everyone to educate you on the merits of Gursky's work. Furthermore, you seem to be expecting a nice, short, easy answer in a photographic forum on contemporary photography. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but contemporary art photography is complicated and a lot has been written about it and it's practitioners. Some glowing, others not so much. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but at least make it an INFORMED opinion. Simply saying I/my kid/my wife/flickr could do better is not good enough, and in fact rather snide (something you are very fast to accuse everyone else of).
We live in an age where information is abundant and free. Why not TRULY educate yourself as to the meaning and value (or otherwise) of Gursky's work? You're not going to get an answer that pleases you in 500 words or less in an internet forum. Guess what? It will involve a lot of reading, looking and thinking, i.e. hard work.
You want some help getting started? In this particular context, do some research on the Dusseldorf School, Hilla and Bernd Becher, Thomas Ruff, Thomas Struth, Candida Hofer and Axel Hutte. Google "[artist name] + criticism", or "[artist name] + interview". Walk into any large bookstore and I guarantee you will a find at least one monograph on these artists. Read the essays, look (really LOOK) at their images. Better still, go and view the actual PRINTS if you ever get the chance.
Tell me what you see in this image that makes it worth $100 much less 4.3m? Aside from the artists background and reputation.
Now who's being snide? You do understand that Gursky's "background and reputation" is a result of technical ability and many years of hard work? Born into a photographic family, educated under some of the premier artists of the 20th century (including the Bechers and Gerhard Richter), peer of other lauded photographers like Struth, Ruff and Hofer. You can be sure that not all the graduates of the Dusseldorf School "made it" as photographers and artists, so why does everyone only talk about the same half dozen people over and over again? Why are their works consistently so expensive on the secondary art market? Fad? Hype? Quality? Hard work? Technical excellence? Intelligence? Critical rigour? A little bit of all of the above?
Some on this forum have tried to point out why this work is interesting, but all you can come back with is that someone else could have done it. Do you even know how the image was created? How many times Gursky had to go back to the location before he got what he wanted? What format it was shot on? The post-production and retouching involved? The preconception and intentionality involved in creating the image? This is all easily found out with a simple Google search – if you were really, truly interested then you would have discovered all this already.
You have already made up your mind that the image is worthless (to you), and that anyone else could do better or the same (according to you). Fair enough. But it's not the prerogative of anyone on this forum to change your mind. Like I said, if you were truly interested you would have taken the initiative and done some real research of your own. BTW, in this context I don't think looking on flickr counts as research.
As to the price, the art market (especially the secondary market) is just that: a market. Price is dictated by the highest bidder and their willingness to pay an amount higher than anyone else for the privilege of owning a particular work. Expecting there to be some kind of rational, codified formula for what someone will pay is simply misguided, foolish and a little naive.
P.S. Gursky works hard and is no technical slouch. Have you seen his North Korean images? It took an enormous amount of negotiation and pre-planning to gain access to the event and his final vantage point. Not only that, each image is a blend of multiple exposures and focus stacks – on LF film! Some shots from his other series involve blended exposures with two LF cameras shooting simultaneously with different focal lengths (normal and slightly wide). His older work is shot using 5x7 but I have seen recent images of him working with a P1 back and an ALPA.
For the record, I am not a Gursky fanboy. I like some of his images, but not all. I have gone out of my way to educate myself on why the art and photographic worlds consider him and the Dusseldorf School so important. The information is out there and (mostly) free, so I suggest you do the same.
-
To me Gursky's Rhine image shows a lot about the world we live in… the society and culture we live in. ...
May be this picture shows a lot about the world "you" live in. I dont think people who lives in Ciudad de Juarez thinks the same.
Well … again and again I am surprised how much photographers are hostile to art.
When an image become a piece of art ?
Luis
-
I like your post a lot with one exception. It depicts the photograph better than anything I've read so far. Art is about expression. Expression is about speech and craft. This image has both. I concour with you that it is a portrait of our society. Remember it is said that you see the artwork and the artwork sees you. Surely with some training we could find the true profile of the owner(s). Me... I'm not an art expert but I can see a quest for a world full of vastness, emptyness and order. I never been to Germany but when I imagine this country, sometimes images like this spark inside my brain.
Other people might see something entirely different. Art is also about generating opinions. Taking into consideration this and believing the image quality is actually stunning, Rhein II is a piece of art.
Would I buy it? Only if absolutely I had everything in life and had $4.3M to spare. And perhaps maybe not, because I don't think it's worth that kind of money.
I don't think expressing our opinions about this piece is hostility of any kind to art itself. As a matter of fact, neither it is to Gursky and his expressions as an artist or photographer.
Or perhaps I'm just an ignorant, sorry, jealous old fart. :o
Eduardo
To me Gursky's Rhine image shows a lot about the world we live in… the society and culture we live in. It shows much more about us as human beeings than any portrait I've ever seen.
At the same the image also (intentionally) tells a lot about the limitations of photography and about the meaning of photography as a "reproducing" image making tool.
The longer you watch it and the deeper you dive into the image the more dimensions you'll explore… specifically since the image is extremely minimalistic.
Well … again and again I am surprised how much photographers are hostile to art.
-
Gursky's work is really fabulous. He is not a photographer. He is a photo artist. He used photo-editing software far before most of us even knew that you could upload an image to a computer.
As simple as some of his early photos look like they are actually not that easy to make. Captured with large format cameras, usually 5x7, he stitched images together to giant collages. This image of the river Rhine got reduced to is bare minimum. Just the water and the bed that it runs through. No trees, no buildings, just this artificially looking stream of water. I grew up in that area and this photo really captures the size and the feel of that river better than anything I have seen. Most photographers try to capture it in a romantic, beautiful fashion. He just created a portrait of what it is; a straight, industrial river. Gursky pioneered large scale printing. Think about what printers you used in the early 90ties. He wanted his images to be in the size of old paintings. Images that you can view from a distance and that would still reveal individual stories when observed as close-ups. With today's technology it is easier to pull something off like this. But he thought about this 20 years ago. It is interesting to see how he has influenced the style of contemporary photography. I can see that some may not like his work. That is fine. Art is polarizing. In many cases Art is labor intensive. His work is no exception. There is a good documentary on Youtube about the creation of one photo. It is in German but you may see some interesting scenes in there. It comes in 4 chapters and is 1h long. I like the first scene when they show his archive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2Jwwh-99OA&feature=related
D!RK
-
Ken Rockwell says he used a Linholf 617: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm. If so, I wonder how he got such a big print from it.
-
Stitch? One up, one down?
Eduardo
Ken Rockwell says he used a Linholf 617: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm. If so, I wonder how he got such a big print from it.
-
What is art? That is a difficult question. Especially with contemporary art. You should not blame the artist for the strange art business. Who is selling this piece? Who bought it? Perhaps some speculation is going on in the background. It wouldn't be the first time. Perhaps some rich guy wants to show of with a Gursky in his living room and that amount of money is only peanuts for him.
If I remember it right Anselm Kiefer recently said it is sick that one of his paintings was sold for a huge amount of money.
Marcel Duchamp would smile about that. He once asked who is the better artist, the one who sells his paintings for more money?
You don't have to like that image, you don't have to be touched by it. But Gursky shows his images in museums and sells them very well and most of us here don't. And: He decides what he photographs. You can't buy him, you have to buy what he offers. Whether in 500 years someone understands why people payed huge amounts of money in our time fort photographs is a question we can't answer today.
I'm not touched by his images. Ansel Adams landscapes don't touch me either. But I think they are both artists and their images are art. And the value is, what someone is willing to pay for it. Don't mix up things. Bashing of modern art is too easy.
In my opinion art is a reflection about the society you are living in.
Just some thoughts.
Best,
Johannes
From a complete different perspective, since I am touch for both, I agree (and are moved) with your perspective including the humility to understand that we are not the owners of the only valid sight or the only sensitive hard.
About Ansel is my strong believe is that supreme artists like Adams change the craft in the art. He in definitive did.
The legacy don't have to last, a lot of the work of da Vinci proof to be misguided (talking about the "frescos") but the work impacted his generation and beyond.
Ok. So that's my 5cents,
Best regards,
James
-
gursky's work is wonderful. I don't think this is his best image but he's definitely one of the important photo artists.
-
Ken Rockwell ;D Gursky has used 5x7 large format film most of the time. He partly transitioned to MFD with a Hasselblad for some of his work. In the ARTE video you see him shooting with a Linhof 4x5 as well still he prepares 5x7 holders for the shot. 5x7 is a beautiful format. Sadly film for it is slowing going away.
One thing that I am hearing in this forum is that Gursky can sell these images because he is so famous. The truth is that he is famous because he took these images. The comparison with Flickr images is interesting as well. I bet you would actually have a hard time to find an image on Flickr, print it in that scale, and still find it moving. The thing is that most Flickr images are interesting but expected. People shoot sunsets, canyons, people on the street. 90% of the images there are variations of images that have already been taken. Many, maybe most people would prefer a large print of the Antelope Canyon. The thing is that it has been done a thousand times and any new image of it is most likely not changing a viewers perception of photography. When the Impressionism painters started to make their way into the art world many people thought that it was trash. They were used to perfectly rendered oil paintings. Galleries first rejected the work. Mainstream thought that a child could have painted these kind of paintings. One big criteria for Art is if it opens new territories that nobody has explored before. Gursky has done that big time and if you look around you can see his influence in photography work that followed him. The only way to really get an idea about this work is to go to an exhibition and to do a guided tour. It may not move you but it influenced many of today's photographers.
-
I have to admit, with a bit of shame, that I did not know him or his work until this photograph broke this record.
Good for him!
Globally, this is very good for photography and... I tend to agree that much larger file sizes are important. :)
Perhaps he shot his image with this device?
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11667-12089
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ken Rockwell ;D Gursky has used 5x7 large format film most of the time. He partly transitioned to MFD with a Hasselblad for some of his work. In the ARTE video you see him shooting with a Linhof 4x5 as well still he prepares 5x7 holders for the shot. 5x7 is a beautiful format. Sadly film for it is slowing going away.
Thank you Dirk for sharing the ARTE video. I saw all four parts - very enlightening.
-
Ken Rockwell says he used a Linholf 617: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm. If so, I wonder how he got such a big print from it.
Not correct. Ken specifically said "Linhof large-format camera... [which] allowed tilting the film and lens", which excludes 617 by definition. What might have confused you is his system of hyperlinking to his previous articles, and the link for the word "Linhof" led to Ken's 2005 test of 617.
-
I don't think that the capture medium is really that impressive. It is possible to do much higher resolutions with stitching nowadays.
In my view, what is interesting here is mostly:
- The image itself,
- The printing and mounting technique,
- The fact that a photograph can be considered as a suitable speculation medium to those extremes levels.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think that the capture medium is really that impressive. It is possible to do much higher resolutions with stitching nowadays.
In my view, what is interesting here is mostly:
- The image itself,
- The printing and mounting technique,
- The fact that a photograph can be considered as a suitable speculation medium to those extremes levels.
Cheers,
Bernard
I have not explored the current switching techniques and softwares so far, but this is indeed to take seriously into consideration because I suspect that the post-prod in that aspect has done significant progress.
-
I'm all in favour of any photograph (I would prefer it to be one of mine) selling for huge sums, that can't be bad for any of us can it?
Kevin.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HhtQ-1bXIng/SqlpIme-5-I/AAAAAAAAAsg/AF3wOMVKWJE/s400/flogging-dead-horse.jpg)
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HhtQ-1bXIng/SqlpIme-5-I/AAAAAAAAAsg/AF3wOMVKWJE/s400/flogging-dead-horse.jpg)
+1.
-
Not correct. Ken specifically said "Linhof large-format camera... [which] allowed tilting the film and lens", which excludes 617 by definition. What might have confused you is his system of hyperlinking to his previous articles, and the link for the word "Linhof" led to Ken's 2005 test of 617.
You are absolutely right.
-
Do all those people asking 'If you think you can do it why didn't you' really think that we did not take pictures like this? Who are you kidding?
Kuddos to Gursky for his ability to drive prices this high. In my opinion it has little to do with his photography, but has everything to do with his personality and mastery of art of selling. I bet he would do great even if he would do pottery or something instead of photography :)
-
Glad to hear we have such a world-class artist among us!
-
Glad to hear we have such a world-class artist among us!
Yeah, it's funny...
this: we all could do it, I do that every day within I'm taking my shower, my 4 years old sister in law or 99,999 years old gran' ma would do better.
It reminds me the Pirelli calendar shooted by Lagarfeld reactions.
Today I was looking for a Leica glass "info" (the macro 90mm f4) that I finally bought anyway and it's funny internet: "this is crap because aperture is slow", "my standards can't accept an F4 lens", "this is just about average for me"...oh yeah, and the winner of all: "sharpness is just so so..." . Sharpness!!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/90mm-f4-macro.htm
Everybody is more talented than Lagarfeld, Testino or Gursky, we just don't have their relations or businessmen habilities, but if we just had them...we would ___
And of course, without 50MP and Noctilux, I won't even shoot. I don't want to pollute my ___ with an f4 lens. Those are for the amateurs, not for the real shooters.
Interesting morning lecture indeed.
-
Everybody is more talented than Lagarfeld, Testino or Gursky, we just don't have their relations or businessmen habilities, but if we just had them...we would ___
And ... Bourdin "only" cropped all the limbs off his models, Avedon "only" shot on white, Sugimoto "only" shoots blurred architecture and hazy seascapes, Meisel "only" has blank cheque budgets, Bill Viola "only" shoots esoteric videos, Malevich "only" painted a black square, Morandi "only" painted bottles, etc etc etc. ;)
It's all too easy if you selectively criticise, as well as ignore the consistency and dedication required to create a lifetime's body of work.
This topic has really jumped the shark.
-
I've indicated before that I personally don't get moved by Gursky's work. But I'll readily admit that I don't believe I could take (or create) a picture that would provoke as many comments on LuLa as this one of his has. :(
I admit: he has something (besides money) that I don't have.
Eric
-
I've indicated before that I personally don't get moved by Gursky's work. But I'll readily admit that I don't believe I could take (or create) a picture that would provoke as many comments on LuLa as this one of his has. :(
I admit: he has something (besides money) that I don't have.
Eric
Yes, Eric: I suspect you'd find balls of brass and a scrap metal business that sells them.
I have no fight with artists making pots of money; the problem is accepting some as artists. That some otherwise proven artists have also made delightfully funny images to tease their public doesn't diminish their stature; but they have this other body of work too...
Not much to do with grapes of the sour variety, much to do with not wanting to override my own judgement. There is no automatic link between size and artistic worth, just with production cost, impact on other people and the implication that if it's bigger it must be better and thus more worthy of high prices. There is, however, a real, visible link between size of a 'work' and whether it works at that magnification. Some images look better small, others need a larger display; some don't work regardless of scale. I have many of the latter so I speak with authority.
Rob C
-
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html)
-
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html)
That really says it all.
I've seen it before, but it's well worth reading several times over. Thanks for posting it.
Eric
-
First time I read it, but it's worth the time to do so.
Thierry
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html)
-
How much income did you generate with your research and how much students of yours earn their living because of your work.
Best,
Johannes
Hi Johannes,
I have no basis for estimating the effect my teaching might have had on my students' earning power. I can estimate that my own total earnings from 35 years as an academic come to substantially less than half of the stated auction price for Gursky's print.
I don't think either figure relates much to such hard-to-define attributes as "artistic merit" or "artistic value," which are very personal matters, IMHO.
I get a great deal of satisfaction from what I do in photography, and marketing isn't one of the activities that I especially enjoy. I'm not angry with Gursky for succeeding financially better than I have in photography. I simply don't respond emotionally to the work of his that I have seen, but if others do, so much the better for him and for them.
Cheers,
Eric
-
Good points, Johannes.
In fact, that was bugging me with my ex-wife (among other things, for you smart-pants out there ;)): every time I would suggest we buy a piece of art (I tend to prefer modern, abstract, minimalistic art), she would be like "Naah... wait till I buy a brush and paints and will do the same in one afternoon". And the last time she had a brush in hand was in high-school (excludes a make-up brush, of course). Why on earth people think they can do something in one afternoon that others spend their life-time perfecting???
-
I feel that this all relates to the difference between being and pretending to be.
We live in a world that is based on pretention (starting with the pretention to own money called a loan) and the encounter with people who really are what they seem to be is sometimes painful.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I know several people who painted their own "abstracts" for decorations without any previous experience. They definitely look better than 'Home Goods' stuff and I would probably not be able to tell a difference if I see some famous work and my friend's work next to each other in the museum.
-
If I remember correctly Edward Weston's 'Excusado (http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=Edward+Weston%27s+%27Excusado%27+most+expensive+photograph&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1050&bih=1141&tbm=isch&tbnid=DnVftm-jW5Zk9M:&imgrefurl=http://artblart.wordpress.com/tag/brett-weston/&docid=aI7o0nSWk9BmGM&imgurl=http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/edward-weston-excusado-toilet-19251.jpg%253Fw%253D377%2526h%253D475&w=377&h=475&ei=G-XFTo38Ney4iAeSx6SQDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=107&vpy=171&dur=145&hovh=252&hovw=200&tx=118&ty=138&sig=107531201989760168289&page=1&tbnh=155&tbnw=133&start=0&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0)' was the world's most expensive photograph at one time.
The image was a photograph of his toilet.
A list of the world's most expensive photographs can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs).
It makes for some interesting reading.
Cheers,
-
I rather hang a pepper.
Great link, thanks.
Eduardo
If I remember correctly Edward Weston's 'Excusado (http://www.google.com.au/imgres?q=Edward+Weston%27s+%27Excusado%27+most+expensive+photograph&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1050&bih=1141&tbm=isch&tbnid=DnVftm-jW5Zk9M:&imgrefurl=http://artblart.wordpress.com/tag/brett-weston/&docid=aI7o0nSWk9BmGM&imgurl=http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/edward-weston-excusado-toilet-19251.jpg%253Fw%253D377%2526h%253D475&w=377&h=475&ei=G-XFTo38Ney4iAeSx6SQDg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=107&vpy=171&dur=145&hovh=252&hovw=200&tx=118&ty=138&sig=107531201989760168289&page=1&tbnh=155&tbnw=133&start=0&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0)' was the world's most expensive photograph at one time.
The image was a photograph of his toilet.
A list of the world's most expensive photographs can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs).
It makes for some interesting reading.
Cheers,
-
As a F1 fan, I very much like this:
http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Gursky_Andreas_Bahrain_II_25_06_100076c3a.jpg
also by Gursky.
-
Must be another shocker: all I get is a little box with a cross in it.
Ah! I get it now - it's a health warning.
Rob C
-
As a F1 fan, I very much like this:
http://blog.iso50.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Gursky_Andreas_Bahrain_II_25_06_100076c3a.jpg
also by Gursky.
Thanks for the link. That's the first Gursky I've seen that doesn't make me say "Ho, hum!" That one has real pizzazz. I'd spend much more money for it than I would for the one that precipitated this thread.
Eric