Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II  (Read 116116 times)

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11170
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #40 on: December 09, 2012, 06:45:16 PM »

If you did it prior to him, you may have had a chance. 
But only if I had his agents and/or contacts in the "Art" world.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1136
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #41 on: December 09, 2012, 06:57:55 PM »

But only if I had his agents and/or contacts in the "Art" world.


Also very true.

Peter
Logged
www.peterfiore.com

Canvas Colors Brushes  

A life in Art >  www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRsNaNM0ZeU

tim wolcott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 523
    • http://www.galleryoftheamericanlandscape.com
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #42 on: December 25, 2012, 12:20:54 AM »

Although the images look very nice.  I hope they enjoy them for the time they have them.  At my calculations of 4.3 million dollars for a print.  At the rate they fade it looks like they are leasing them for 300,000 dollars a year.  Great investment.  Its like buying fine furniture with termites in them.  

Chromagenic Prints really.  With pigment printing since 1991 and they still make prints with very fade-able dyes.  I Hope they have fun getting sued.  

Read the article Why C prints fade.  Tim Wolcott
Logged

Fips

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 195
    • some unrelated photos on flickr
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2013, 12:38:33 PM »

The oldest C-print of Gursky which I have seen is Montparnasse from 1993 and I it still looks great. Most of his newer work is printed with pigment ink.
Logged

John Gellings

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #44 on: January 09, 2013, 08:44:05 AM »

Although the images look very nice.  I hope they enjoy them for the time they have them.  At my calculations of 4.3 million dollars for a print.  At the rate they fade it looks like they are leasing them for 300,000 dollars a year.  Great investment.  Its like buying fine furniture with termites in them.  

Chromagenic Prints really.  With pigment printing since 1991 and they still make prints with very fade-able dyes.  I Hope they have fun getting sued.  

Read the article Why C prints fade.  Tim Wolcott

Surely you've been to the museum and have seen early color photos no?
Logged

tim wolcott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 523
    • http://www.galleryoftheamericanlandscape.com
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2013, 12:15:25 PM »

Sure I have but these are not early photos.  These are from recent mid 1990's at the latest.Really instills faith that the rest of his work has any merits or value.  Its like selling fine furniture with termites in it.  

By the way early color photography from the late 1800's and early 1900's are very nice to this day.  And that photography was made with pigments.  The only reason his prints have this over inflated value is thru manipulation by powerful european gallery owners.  "Not that there is anything wrong with that."

Remember value is over time can only be achieved by longevity.  

So ask yourself this question.  Do you disclose to the buyer/client that the artwork they are about to purchase that it fades 10% every 2-12 years.  Would they BUY IT.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 01:02:35 PM by tim wolcott »
Logged

Walt Roycraft

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 421
    • roycraftart
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #46 on: January 15, 2013, 05:40:14 PM »

'Why, I ask, is my unmade bed just an unmade bed and hers is art? "Because you didn't say that yours was art and you didn't feel that it was. I saw it as art and felt that it was. I said that it was and showed that it was. I have transferred what I feel on to someone else looking at it. That's the alchemy. That's the magic. I was the person who had to have the conviction in the first place.'

Where is this quote from, may I ask?
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #47 on: January 15, 2013, 08:15:23 PM »

Quote the first sentence and Google finds - The Scotsman, Friday 11 July 2008

As for originality, The Unmade Bed Imogen Cunningham, 1957.
Logged

Walt Roycraft

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 421
    • roycraftart
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #48 on: January 16, 2013, 11:23:18 AM »

I always hate it when people ask a question without googleing it first!
Stupid me.
Thanks for the easy answer.
Logged

RedwoodGuy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #49 on: February 06, 2013, 12:33:00 PM »

Like Isaac, I get a bit weary of the "all modern art is rubbish" brigade. This is probably not a view that anyone would admit to holding, and I am sure they would have a good case and be able to quote modern artists they respect. It is more a question of tone, the exchange of coterie jokes about dog poop etc, and of an apparent eagerness to denounce something without having taken the trouble to understand it. I find my eyes rolling, entirely of their own accord.

It's not that I don't think there is rubbish around. It is more because I have the personal experience of thinking something to be rubbish and then discovering myself to have missed the point; and because the history of art over the last two hundred years is full of examples of work being denounced as rubbish by the great and the good and then discovered to be wonderful by the next generation of the great and the good. There is a case for a bit of caution and humility, initially at least. Then, when you have felt anything there is to feel and formed a view, by all means go for it and express it forcefully.

I also think that education has its uses. I say this not to reflect on anyone else's views on any artist or subject - I don't know anything about anyone else's education -  but rather as a reflection of my own experience. The artists I like I have liked at first glance, but then I have found that studying them greatly enhances my pleasure. This may have nothing to do with universities - my own experience has been that academic fine art courses are a mixed blessing.

I also think there are conversations you can't have without knowing something about the history of the ideas that are in play and that (self-)education (the best kind) is the only way to get that knowledge. People who don't have it sometimes get resentful and lash out. Even on Lula, you sometimes meet the spiritual heirs of Benjamin Jowett, about whom an admirer wrote "I am the master of Balliol College/What I don't know, isn't knowledge".

I would need to see the Gursky on the wall in order to discover whether I like it or not. Minimalist works generally don't come across on a small screen. Late Rothko would be my case in point. I used to think them rubbish, until I spent an hour in a room full of them. I am sure there will be someone here who does think them rubbish - no doubt after careful consideration  ;)
One of the most thoughtful responses I've seen to the many Rhein II internet discussion I have followed. Well reasoned, well written and concise!
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9388
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #50 on: February 10, 2013, 12:07:17 AM »

Aren't there a few points you guys seem to be ignoring?

(1) The print is huge. It's mounted on glass approximately 6ft 9ins high and 11ft 8ins wide.

(2) The print is a genuine artistic creation according to my interpretation of Rob C's standards. That is, the scene (as a whole) doesn't exist in reality. It was digitally manipulated. Not only were dog walkers and cyclists removed, (there was probably a constant stream of them) but a factory building was also cloned out.

(3) The viewer is not invited to consider a specific place along the river but rather an almost 'platonic' ideal of the body of water as it navigates the landscape.

(4) Many of the people who can afford such expensive works of art as this, have probably spent most of their time making money, living almost exclusively in very artificial environments in congested, bustling cities.

They are probably so out of touch with the natural environment, if you were to confront them with a large image of a single blade of grass, they would probably swoon in ecstasy.  ;D
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 07:40:33 AM by Ray »
Logged

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #51 on: February 10, 2013, 03:58:59 PM »

Quote the first sentence and Google finds - The Scotsman, Friday 11 July 2008

As for originality, The Unmade Bed Imogen Cunningham, 1957.
Nice links, thanks. I would argue that the existence of Imogen Cunningham's elegant B&W print, with its sheet referencing drapery in painting etc, doesn't really call in question the originality of Tracey Emin turning her actual smelly bed into a "work of art". OTOH, I also think originality is ultimately just an aesthetic characteristic rather than an aesthetic virtue.
Logged
Ken Cameron

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #52 on: February 10, 2013, 08:47:17 PM »

I think we should wonder about possible associations, just as seeing Excusado should make us wonder about Marcel Duchamp ;-)
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9388
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #53 on: February 10, 2013, 09:07:26 PM »

Which guys?

Dear me, Isaac! The question, "Aren't there a few points you guys seem to be ignoring?" was merely a general expression in common language of my impression, after skipping through the responses in this thread, that essential questions about this photograph that occurred to me, were not being addressed.

However, if you wish to get philosophical, the answer to your question would be... 'most guys on most subjects throughout the ages, and during the present time'.

To get back to the topic, Eric made a reference to the print's humongus size, without mentioning how large, and Kencameron mentioned he'd reserve his judgement until he'd seen it full-size.

If one accepts the recommended viewing distance from a print as being 1.5x its diagonal, then Gursky's 12ft wide Rhine II should be ideally viewed from a distance of 20ft or more. The sheer size alone makes the print more suitable for wealthy people who can afford to live in mult-million dollar mansions containing at least one huge room.

Other issues that occurred to me, simply because of my general interest in photography, are the resolution of this huge print and the type of camera used. If the scene was shot with a single frame from Medium Format film, then the print might appear rather fuzzy from distances closer than 20ft, depending on the type of sharpening applied.

Don't many people, particularly photographers, like to examine large prints from close up? I haven't been able to find any 100% crops of this Gursky print.

The general outrage and amazement that such a high price could be paid for something which is essentially a photograph, despite its huge size and the artistic manipulation involved in the processing, is perhaps overblown.

Things that are either scarce or unique have a history of attracting ridiculously high prices, such as rare postage stamps, a pot of gold, or lumps of highly compressed carbon, often referred to as diamonds.

I ask myself, which is more ludicrous, paying $4.7 million for an impressively large print depicting a very peaceful and idealized scene across the Rhine River, which you would rarely find in the real world due to the ever-present dog-walkers, cyclists, pedestrians and occasional factory... or, paying $4.7 million (or more) for a lump of highly compressed and polished carbon which merely glitters, and which is usually locked up in a safe out of sight, for security reasons?

Another issue is the reproducibility of the Rhine II print. A photograph of a painting is still a photograph and the differences between the two can be easily discerned. But a photograph of a photograph can be visually indistinguishable from the original, without forensic testing.

If I were to own this print from Gursky, one of the first things I'd do is make a copy of it. I'd even be prepared to buy the best Nikon prime to use on my D800E, and take multiple shots of it for stitching, so I could capture even the texture of the photographic paper used for the original.  ;D

Logged

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #54 on: February 11, 2013, 04:00:02 PM »

I think we should wonder about possible associations, just as seeing Excusado should make us wonder about Marcel Duchamp ;-)
Nice one. You've got me wondering.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2013, 04:07:35 PM by kencameron »
Logged
Ken Cameron

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #55 on: February 11, 2013, 04:20:29 PM »

I ask myself, which is more ludicrous, paying $4.7 million for an impressively large print ... or, paying $4.7 million (or more) for a lump of highly compressed and polished carbon...
Depends what you get when you sell them. Market value is market value. If you are saying that some of the outcomes of the market are ludicrous, or (much) worse, sure. But where would we be without it? Somewhere nasty, brutish and short, IMO.

Still not sure what points I was ignoring - or even if I was one of the guys who ignored them  ;)
Logged
Ken Cameron

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9388
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #56 on: February 11, 2013, 09:50:44 PM »

Still not sure what points I was ignoring - or even if I was one of the guys who ignored them  ;)

Let's be clear. I haven't accused anyone of ignoring any points. I merely asked the question, "Aren't there a few points you guys seem to be ignoring?"

If anyone wants to answer, No, then fine. However, it might be a bit arrogant to answer 'No, period', because there will usually prove to be at least a few points that most people will ignore on any matter raised. An alternative answer could be, "I might have missed a few points, but none of those that you mentioned."

Quote
Depends what you get when you sell them. Market value is market value. If you are saying that some of the outcomes of the market are ludicrous, or (much) worse, sure. But where would we be without it? Somewhere nasty, brutish and short, IMO.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we should distinguish between a commodity which is primarily used as a substitute for money, that is, something which increases in value as money does when deposited in a bank account, and something which in it's own right, independent of any price tag, produces a sense of joy, or peace, or contemplative calm, or wonder etc.

For example, if one is a multibillionaire and has bought a nice mansion with extensive gardens for $80 million, and has spent a further $20 million refurbishing, decorating and lanscaping the place, then an additional $4.7 million to create a spectacular view of the Rhine River, creating the impression that the room where the print is located actually has a window overlooking that peaceful and serene river, could be considered as money well-spent, as opposed to a few diamonds or a few kilograms of gold bullion stored out of sight in a safe.
Logged

kencameron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 840
    • Recent Photographs
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #57 on: February 11, 2013, 11:55:00 PM »


The point I'm trying to make here is that we should distinguish between a commodity which is primarily used as a substitute for money, that is, something which increases in value as money does when deposited in a bank account, and something which in it's own right, independent of any price tag, produces a sense of joy, or peace, or contemplative calm, or wonder etc.

For example, if one is a multibillionaire and has bought a nice mansion with extensive gardens for $80 million, and has spent a further $20 million refurbishing, decorating and lanscaping the place, then an additional $4.7 million to create a spectacular view of the Rhine River, creating the impression that the room where the print is located actually has a window overlooking that peaceful and serene river, could be considered as money well-spent, as opposed to a few diamonds or a few kilograms of gold bullion stored out of sight in a safe.

Ah, I understand. A fair distinction, reminding us that there is more than one kind of value. Although of course there may be people for whom the knowledge that they have diamonds or gold bullion stored out of sight in a safe would produce a sense of joy, or peace, or contemplative calm, or wonder. Although I wouldn't personally go that quite that far (except maybe as to the wonder, given the usual state of my finances), my own feelings would be probably be at least positive.
Logged
Ken Cameron

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8344
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #58 on: February 12, 2013, 10:02:10 AM »

People who collect Gursky's photographs or Pollock's drippings aren't collecting art, they're collecting objects, in the same way coin collectors aren't collecting coins because they're valuable as coins but because they're valuable as objects. Art collectors would be much better off collecting coins. An art object hanging on a wall easily can be vandalized by a vandal or destroyed in a fire, but a coin properly secured is really hard to damage. Besides that, a coin can show another collector how obscenely wealthy you must be just as effectively as a canvas full of drips can. A thousand years from now nobody will have a clue who Andreas Gursky was or who Jackson Pollock was, but a collector may still have your coins in his collection, and those coins will be worth trillions (mainly because of Ben Bernanke).

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3128
Re: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II
« Reply #59 on: February 12, 2013, 11:19:40 AM »

A fair distinction, reminding us that there is more than one kind of value.

"I am suggesting that the price paid for a work of art becomes its absolute and authoritative value, even if the value the price implies is not particularly clear. It is presented without explanation -- the price is the explanation."

"Thus art has become a venue for the exhibition of money."

ART VALUES OR MONEY VALUES? by Donald Kuspit
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9   Go Up