Andreas Gursky - take a hike !

[dreed]

...
Until the world sees a verifiable, arms length transaction there will, at the very least, always be 'a doubt' . What is equally surprising, given the current climate, is that so far not one single copy of the several thousand works of art, that must have presumably been sold to date, has appeared in an auction house for sale.  Surely there must be ONE punter who, dazzled by the figures being thrown around, would decide to cash-in on his/her windfall ?

Or else the auction houses are keeping their distance.

I've known artists to buy back their own works on eBay and then resell them themselves for more than what was paid on eBay. It goes something like this:

A sells picture on A's website to B for $x
B sells picture to A (anonymously) via ebay for $y where $y < $x
A sells picture on A's website to C for $z where $z > $y and $z <= $x

and it helps maintain the value of A's work.

Which is to say that if this picture that Lik took was auctioned tomorrow and it was bout back by Lik for $5 million then he has made only $1 million but kept the value of his brand high.

[Manoli]

I've known artists to buy back their own works on eBay and then resell them themselves for more than what was paid on eBay... Which is to say that if this picture that Lik took was auctioned tomorrow and it was bout back by Lik for $5 million then he has made only $1 million but kept the value of his brand high.

Nothing wrong or dubious about that. It's been done, in one form or another, for several decades. And no reason to believe that any 'work of art' one has just bought,  one can immediately re-sell at a profit. But this is not about an artist standing behind his work, (and having the financial means to do so), rather the contrary.

If you read the blog posts I've linked to above, a rather unsurprising picture begins to emerge..

" No clue why she contacted me…but, I guess this poor collector didn’t feel that adding to the 591 others currently trying to sell their pieces for exorbitant prices on Art Brokerage.com was a reasonable option.  Probably because it isn’t.  Right now, for example, there are 18 different people with Angel’s Heart listed for sale.  Some are asking $28,000 for a 60” print, and others are asking $16,000 for a 75” print, while still others are asking $73,800 for a 78” print.  This would all be laughable, except that there’s still apparently a large number of people that believe that there is value to large editions, or at the very least, there’s currently 591 people on Art Brokerage hoping so."  

[Theodoros]

I wonder on the following...

1. Wouldn't a resale of a piece of art (not just a photograph - any art) in lower price than it was bought affect the creator's reputation negatively? (and thus his future pricing)?

2. How many prints of the same subject does Lik makes? ...I know Gursky has printed most of his work at least twice, sometimes three times and there are cases that he has made four prints... (all with the same profile on the same material and same size).

3. Aren't collectors negatively affected on buying photography, since there can always be more (original) copies produced? I mean one sells the print... not the negative or the file rights with it...

[Manoli]

1. Wouldn't a resale of a piece of art (not just a photograph - any art) in lower price than it was bought affect the creator's reputation negatively? (and thus his future pricing)?

No, it wouldn't. It's unrealistic to expect any vendor whether he be an artist or otherwise, to sell his goods at below 'market' value, and that value is the free-market price between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

2. How many prints of the same subject does Lik makes? ...I know Gursky has printed most of his work at least twice, sometimes three times and there are cases that he has made four prints... (all with the same profile on the same material and same size).

I don't know, there are so many. If you look at the screenshot I posted earlier (and again below) there are 950 limited edition prints and 45 artist proofs. Compare that to the usual edition size in the Sotheby's listing I linked to of 6 -8 proofs. Once you go over 25, the residual value is much reduced.

3. Aren't collectors negatively affected on buying photography, since there can always be more (original) copies produced? I mean one sells the print... not the negative or the file rights with it...

Normally edition prints are signed and numbered.

[torger]

Gursky and Lik is not working in the same genres and not selling to the same customers. Gursky has good credibility in the art world (he's an art professor at Kunstakademie Düsseldorf by the way), prints are in various modern art museums. The record sale of Rhein II was made at an auction at Christie's (and if I remember correctly the seller was not Gursky, but an art gallery that had bought it earlier).

As far as I know Lik does not have much acceptance in the art world, but his style works very well in the US and there's a good amount of resourceful buyers there. Lik images is something beautiful you hang on the walls in a home, while Gursky's images like most modern art photography is better suited in an art gallery. I'm personally not so fond of Lik's style of photography (too "Las Vegas" to me) and surely think that Gursky's work speak more to me and fit better on the walls of an art museum (price is still crazy...), but it's comparing apples with oranges.

If the buyer would be worried about resale value in say 50 years (look at art as an investment), I think it's safer to buy work by Gursky and other which have prints in famous art museum collections than work by Lik.

[Ken R]

Gursky and Lik is not working in the same genres and not selling to the same customers. Gursky has good credibility in the art world (he's an art professor at Kunstakademie Düsseldorf by the way), prints are in various modern art museums. The record sale of Rhein II was made at an auction at Christie's (and if I remember correctly the seller was not Gursky, but an art gallery that had bought it earlier).

As far as I know Lik does not have much acceptance in the art world, but his style works very well in the US and there's a good amount of resourceful buyers there. Lik images is something beautiful you hang on the walls in a home, while Gursky's images like most modern art photography is better suited in an art gallery. I'm personally not so fond of Lik's style of photography (too "Las Vegas" to me) and surely think that Gursky's work speak more to me and fit better on the walls of an art museum (price is still crazy...), but it's comparing apples with oranges.

If the buyer would be worried about resale value in say 50 years (look at art as an investment), I think it's safer to buy work by Gursky and other which have prints in famous art museum collections than work by Lik.

Basically Lik is possibly the most successful "Photo Gallery" or "Calendar" photographer ever. Along with Rodney Lough Jr. (which IMHO produces nicer and "truer" prints than Lik). You are right. These type of photographers concentrate on selling to regular folk or "walk-ins" in touristy areas around the US. Completely different from the typical Art Gallery and Art scene (and don't think either would go to Art Basel for example) They are the highest example of the typical photo gallery you see at most tourist towns that depict the local scenery beautifully but instead of being local or staying and displaying in their home town they traveled all across the US. Even so Rodney Lough's work is mostly composed of scenes withing driving distance of his Oregon home. And having talked to him he is really passionate about his work and the places he photographs. He cares about protecting and conserving those places. It is not about capturing a scene and milking every cent out of it after photoshopping it to shreds. His work is quite honest.

Gursky is just in another world in regards to concept compared to Lik.

[Theodoros]

Normally edition prints are signed and numbered.

Yeah, I know... but surely there is always the risk that there can be another edition at some later time (with photography that is)... This can't be irrelevant to pricing, surely a collector always has in the back of his head the possibility that his precious owning can be undervalued in the future, because there can be "unexpected competition" in the market at lower price....  I say this, because although I admire Gursky's work as much as any photographer, I believe that fame and appreciation of his work would be the same if there where (much) more prints and thus prices where "down to earth"... It surely would be the same (or even more) profitable for the artist, but surely the fame appreciation would be higher.

By the way, I also have this enquire that would like to discuss with (some of) the people here:

If visualisation is fundamental behind art (and for photography as a consequence), then, a photo-graph can only be the one printed by the creator himself... no? I mean, one can't imagine a painter directing his painting to others and to only sign it... Visualisation can't be shared between two minds... can it? At least we know that Adams was printing every single print he ever printed all by himself... It can't be otherwise, can it?

As a consequence, one can't present a print made in a lab... and proudly say: "Hey, look at this photograph of ...mine!" ...it's not his photo-graph anymore, ...is it?

[Mitchell Baum]

Visualization is one way to go about "art" and seems to appeal to some people as making "art" more serious and legitimate, but it is by no means the only road to art. Novels have been written with no plan, starting only with a single sentence or feeling, or an ending is written and a beginning is then filled in. Paintings have been painted by reacting to a single stroke of color, then seeing, reacting and building on it. The final composition is only discovered when it appears. "OK, that's it I'm done." Some fine photographs are the products of a flash of recognition that there is something important in front of me. I need to work with it to find it. Don't know quite what it will be yet. (Certainly, digital has made this method of working more common.) And, this process of experimentation can continue in the darkroom or on the computer. If visualization were the only method, we would take only one picture of any subject.
Experimentation and play are vital in art. Any ridgid prescription of artistic method limits our possibilities.

Best,

Mitchell

[Theodoros]

Visualization is one way to go about "art" and seems to appeal to some people as making "art" more serious and legitimate, but it is by no means the only road to art. Novels have been written with no plan, starting only with a single sentence or feeling, or an ending is written and a beginning is then filled in. Paintings have been painted by reacting to a single stroke of color, then seeing, reacting and building on it. The final composition is only discovered when it appears. "OK, that's it I'm done." Some fine photographs are the products of a flash of recognition that there is something important in front of me. I need to work with it to find it. Don't know quite what it will be yet. (Certainly, digital has made this method of working more common.) And, this process of experimentation can continue in the darkroom or on the computer. If visualization were the only method, we would take only one picture of any subject.
Experimentation and play are vital in art. Any ridgid prescription of artistic method limits our possibilities.

Best,

Mitchell

Do you mean that experimentation can exist without visualisation? ...I would strongly disagree on that, IMO, it's completely the opposite that is true... Besides, I would prefer if there was a reference on a specific works that didn't involve visualisation IYO... I think you may confuse the criteria that where the reasoning and initiated a piece of art, with the existence of visualisation in the implementation of it... If this is the case, it's a common mistake that people do when they refer on the matter...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...if there was a reference on a specific works that didn't involve visualisation.....

Jackson Pollock

[Isaac]

"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 2007

[Manoli]

isaac

Posting a link to an article whose core tenet is that 'art has become a venue for the exhibition of money' misses the point, in this case,  by a golden mile.

The question raised here is whether or not the reported price is in anyway a bona fide transaction. 48 hours later it would seem there is little doubt. There have been two reported record sales recently. One a Giacometti and this Lik thing the second. Do a Google search on " <artist> record sale " and look at the first page of results in each case .  - note the sources and you'll perhaps get an idea why the Lik news has been disregarded by almost every reliable news source other than The Guardian's Art critic ( and then only to rubbish it).

Just to make it easier for you, attached are the two 'suggested search' screen shots. Capisce ?

[Isaac]

The question raised here is …

… all about Money Values.

[Theodoros]

Jackson Pollock

Exactly who I had in mind for proving that visualisation is a fundamental, if innovative ways of coding are to be applied. Pollock! ...a perfect example!
Ed Harris' film is explaining it better than words can. Have you seen it?  
Another good example would be Goya's late B&W paintings that describe perfectly his late life mind disturbance...

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... late life mind disturbance...

I hope you are not there yet

[Theodoros]

I hope you are not there yet

FUNNY! ...Ha, ha, ha... 

[amolitor]

Plenty of Art with a capital A is done without previsualization. It generally has an idea or concept in mind, but there's no particular reason to have any particularly precise idea of what it will look like.

There's Art being made via random processes, and so on.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Exactly who I had in mind for proving that visualisation is a fundamental, if innovative ways of coding are to be applied. Pollock! ...a perfect example!...

I am confused. Are you saying that Pollock is a perfect example of visualization, or that he is an example of what happens without visualization?

[Theodoros]

I am confused. Are you saying that Pollock is a perfect example of visualization, or that he is an example of what happens without visualization?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrVE-WQBcYQ

Cat cut your tongue? You can't verbalize an answer to a simple question?