Andreas Gursky's Rhein II

[Steve Weldon]

Precisely which comments, in this discussion of Gursky's photo, do you claim are the "negative (and all too often elitist) reactions"?

Please quote the exact words, so I don't have to guess what you mean.

a.  There was another thread I haven't looked at since last week where the insults were very direct and severe.  I'm sure you can find it. 

b.  I promise, you won't be left guessing.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Steve et al.,

Why don't we turn the table for a moment? If that "crappy" image is not worthy of millions, which one, in your opinion, is? Which one of contemporary landscape photos you think raises the bar and sets the standard of being "true" art, worthy of both adoration of millions of the masses and millions of dollars?

[Rob C]

Slobodan, the answer is short and simple: none.

Rob C

[Rob C]

http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=112574&handle=li

Art or artifice?

Rob C

[Steve Weldon]

Steve et al.,

Why don't we turn the table for a moment? If that "crappy" image is not worthy of millions, which one, in your opinion, is? Which one of contemporary landscape photos you think raises the bar and sets the standard of being "true" art, worthy of both adoration of millions of the masses and millions of dollars?

That's an excellent question.. though when I speak of what an image is worth I'm thinking of 'to me' and not on the general market. And like I said, I didn't want to get into the question on what's art or not as it seems more a personal interpretation than one we'll all agree with.   I really have little knowledge on the market value of contemporary photos.  Worth millions?  Probably none, but I remain open.  There are probably plenty of "utility" purpose photographs people would pay millions for, and they could be made artistic but I don't think that's what you're asking for. 

[Steve Weldon]

I searched out and read through the "Record for any photo sold at auction set in NYC" comments.

As far as I can tell, there's very little difference between what you describe as "honest negative opinion" and what you describe as "direct or indirect insults".

The main difference seems to be that when you speak about others you think it's "honest negative opinion" but when others speak about you then you think it's "direct or indirect insults".

Isaac.. you can do better than that.  Please be reasonable.  You don't immediately see that the main difference is that when discussing the image in question and giving opinions.. we were critiquing a third party who put an image out there to be critiqued.  And the direct and indirect insults were aimed personally at those who made them and were not referenced towards an image.  Or in more simple terms everyone, positive and negative opinions, were directed at an image.  The insults were directed at each other.

With such discussions intellectual honesty is key.

[Steve Weldon]

It gets just as old listening

Let's elevate this discussion a bit shall we?

[mbaginy]

Christies probably could sell elephant poop to these people if it called it "fine art." Oh, wait, didn't a world-famous museum present elephant poop as fine art not long ago?

The elephant poop might be a worthwhile project!  I recall in the 70s, where a friend who worked for an insurance company had to insure an artist's exhibition for an unbelievable amount.  The exhibit was cans of "Artist's Sh...".  So nothing seems impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit

[Rob C]

The elephant poop might be a worthwhile project!  I recall in the 70s, where a friend who worked for an insurance company had to insure an artist's exhibition for an unbelievable amount.  The exhibit was cans of "Artist's Sh...".  So nothing seems impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist%27s_shit

I seem to remember seeing photographs of the tins in which the stuff was being kept; also remember seeing a tv segment where an 'artist' did, indeed, use elephant shit to make his pictures. But then, if it goes like cowdung, it can always be used - in extremis - to create a little warmth in the grate. Not a bad investment in these days of rising fossil fuel prices.

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You guys seem to be pooh-poohing the poop? Especially the elephant one. A poopy idea, at best. It is a recyclable and valuable product, which can be used for (ultimately) artistic purposes, like paper.

[Rob C]

You guys seem to be pooh-poohing the poop? Especially the elephant one. A poopy idea, at best. It is a recyclable and valuable product, which can be used for (ultimately) artistic purposes, like paper.

Slobodan, I never cease to be amazed by the diversity of the places where you have planted your feet!

Rob C

[Graystar]

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/andreas-gursky-rhein-ii/5496716/lot/lot_details.aspx

From the "Lot Notes"...
"A breathtaking masterpiece of scale and wonderment, as well as the icon of Andreas Gursky's pioneering photographic oeuvre, Rhein II, enwraps the viewer in the sheer beauty of its scene."


From the "Overview"...
"On occasion, Christie's has a direct financial interest in lots consigned for sale which may include guaranteeing a minimum price or making an advance to the consignor that is secured solely by consigned property. This is such a lot."

Gotta say though...the parallelism of those lines is simply amazing!  And so straight!  I’d KILL for straight lines like that!

 

[kencameron]

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 

[RSL]

I agree, Ken. I'll go further: I think education is a key that unlocks all sorts of experiences in the art world you'd otherwise pass by. Besides that, art history is fascinating stuff.

I think Raul summed it up. Certainly Gursky has done some fine work, though Rhein II is a long way from fine work. But it seems to me that the bottom line is there's a huge disconnect between art and the art market. I've already explained why, so I won't go back over it.

[Fips]

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.

Absolutely. But I get even more pleasure out of art which I initially didn't like or 'get'. Case in point are Bernd and Hilla Becher for me. I guess their work is something that is almost impossible to 'get' without learning about their motivation and intentions.

Regarding Gursky, I wouldn't describe him as minimalistic, although 'Rhein II' or the Bangkok series certainly are. But for me his best images, like 'Sao Paolo Se' for example, are rather gigantic, photographic Where's Waldos. Absolutely stunning too see in person.

[Rhossydd]

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.

Nice to finally see some reason in this thread.

I suspect most of the Gursky detractors in this thread have never actually seen a real Gursky print.

A significant part of the impact of his work is the shear size of the works and the astonishing amount of detail they contain even at very close viewing distances. Plus the quality of the print making is exemplary.
When you stand in front of one, it really is an exceptional experience. Once you've done that you'll understand why his work can command such extreme prices.

[kencameron]

Regarding Gursky, I wouldn't describe him as minimalistic, although 'Rhein II' or the Bangkok series certainly are. But for me his best images, like 'Sao Paolo Se' for example, are rather gigantic, photographic Where's Waldos. Absolutely stunning too see in person.

You are absolutely right of course - I really only meant the example at the head of the thread, and registered it as untypical. "Photographic Where's Waldos" is nice - I don't promise not to plagiarize it

[John Gellings]

Exactly!

And if I had taken it, and blown it up to humongous size and mounted it to acrylic or whatever, I seriously doubt whether anybody would have paid over 4 million for it.

Eric

If you did it prior to him, you may have had a chance. 

[petermfiore]

If you did it prior to him, you may have had a chance. 

In our world today it's who is FIRST and the rest consigned to the dust bin.
Both true and sad.

Peter

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

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.