Andreas Gursky's Rhein II

[Isaac]

Andreas Gursky's Rhein II sets photo record

[Rob C]

I believe Gursky to be one man who has discovered how to manipulate the acquisitive madness within people. He must be as bemused by it all as am I.

Rob C

[Rob C]

I tend to think that the highly priced photography being bought isn't really being bought as 'art' at all, but as a sort of mutually accepted form of 'value' to replace the doubtful monetary markers that were valid until around '08; mutually accepted, of course, amongst those with the billions to protect.

Looking around me right now, I wonder how at ease I'd feel were I to win many millions on the lottery... here, within the Euro Zone? It could possibly be as frightening an experience as exhilarating.

Such 'art' was never intended for mere mortals; maybe we should just smile and forget it; better still, provide it!

Rob C

[RSL]

It demonstrates once again, as if another demonstration were necessary, that "fine art" is a marketing term having little to do with actual art. 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?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

It demonstrates once again, as if another demonstration were necessary, that "fine art" is a marketing term having little to do with actual art. 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?

Right!

So, Russ, are you planning to change your website's URL to something like "FineSnaps.com" and leave out the "Art?"   

Eric

[RSL]

Remember, Eric. It's a marketing term. My web supposedly is for marketing. In an effort to boost sales I may even start offering elephant poop.

[Rob C]

"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

That's a very interesting link that you posted, thanks very much!

Rob C

[PierreVandevenne]

"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."

Well, I guess this rule could also be applied to some cameras.

[Rob C]

Well, I guess this rule could also be applied to some cameras.

Hence the unopened Leica boxes in the Japanese collections that one hears about.

What a shame that money keeps certain tools out of reach... need a revolution! Only joking about the revolution, though, we don't need more problems just yet.

Rob C

[Steve Weldon]

Hence the unopened Leica boxes in the Japanese collections that one hears about.

What a shame that money keeps certain tools out of reach... need a revolution! Only joking about the revolution, though, we don't need more problems just yet.

Rob C

This has bothered me about certain factory track day cars for as long as I can remember.  Ford for instance makes a race ready car the average person could afford to buy and race on weekends.. makes it to meet all the requirements.  And then a bunch of "collectors" bids up the price to 4-5x the intended price and parks them with the plastic still on the seat.. never to race or in most cases make a single lap around a track.

Other than being an image from an accomplished photographer.. I still don't see anything in that image.  It's an image my wife would delete from her PNS.  And before someone says "then why didn't she take it?"  I think she did.  I like hers better.

[Rob C]

"Then why didn't you take it?"

Another answer to the question could be that nobody else wanted to take Mr G's shots.

Rob C

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

"Then why didn't you take it?"

Another answer to the question could be that nobody else wanted to take Mr G's shots.

Rob C

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

[Steve Weldon]

That answer doesn't inform us about Mr G's shots - perhaps if others had wanted to take Mr G's shots that would suggest they were commonplace, and the fact that nobody else had that vision suggests that they may be extraordinary? (Or not.)

'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.'

Sounds more like the personal thoughts of an insane person.   It gets really old listening to people tell me a painting of a fresh pile of dog shite or Jesus wearing a Hello Kitty skirt is art.  Perhaps to the creators they feel it is, and I'll give them their due.  But I find it very sheep like when others claim their "art studdys" program enabled them to see art others can't see like they're in some secret club with one of a kind decoder rings. 

If someone thinks something they created is art I'd never be the one to tell them it isn't, to them it may very well be.  And if someone else wants to spend 4.3 million to buy it.. then good for them.  And if someone who took an "art studdys" program wants to go all elite on us and tell us he/she can see things we cannot.. then good for him/her.   But unlike the great majority of art displayed in museums the world over.. most people are just going to see it for what it really is.  Something my wife would have deleted on her PNS..   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... someone who took an "art studdys" program...

You keep making fun of a non-native English speaker's misspelling (or typo). Not cool, Mr. Weldon, not cool.


P.S. And, for the sake of others, no, I am not talking about myself

[Steve Weldon]

You keep making fun on a non-native English speaker's misspelling (or typo). Not cool, Mr. Weldon, not cool.


P.S. And, for the sake of others, no, I am not talking about myself

It is a bit out of line isn't it?  Irony is like that sometimes.  Before I go all elite on someone and tell them how my education gives me super powers and all.. I make sure to flip on the spell checker to make sure I spell "super powers" correctly.  I might not be the perfect speller in my own second languages, but my education does extend to the basics of technology if not the esoteric arts.

[Steve Weldon]

As does much practical science - for example, time running more slowly at high altitude than at sea level ;-)

Or the world is round.  Got it.. 

[jjj]

Other than being an image from an accomplished photographer.. I still don't see anything in that image.  It's an image my wife would delete from her PNS.  And before someone says "then why didn't she take it?"  I think she did.  I like hers better.

To appreciate a Gursky or say a Gregory Crewsdon print you have to see them in the flesh, a 800x600px online version is not the same thing at all. In fact many of my own images loose their impact when reduced for web as they lose their texture. I've seen a Gursky similar to the record breaking shot and it stuck in my mind more than many other photos I've seen in exhibitions.

Whether it is worth the money paid is another argument again and just because a work of art is not to your taste does not disqualify it from being art or being good. I cannot stand Dali's work [with a few exceptions], yet I would never be arrogant enough to say it is rubbish/not art.

[Steve Weldon]

To appreciate a Gursky or say a Gregory Crewsdon print you have to see them in the flesh, a 800x600px online version is not the same thing at all. In fact many of my own images loose their impact when reduced for web as they lose their texture. I've seen a Gursky similar to the record breaking shot and it stuck in my mind more than many other photos I've seen in exhibitions.

Whether it is worth the money paid is another argument again and just because a work of art is not to your taste does not disqualify it from being art or being good. I cannot stand Dali's work [with a few exceptions], yet I would never be arrogant enough to say it is rubbish/not art.

a.  I accept this.  Images, properly composed, are visualized at a certain viewing size for maximum effect.  And I accept this guy must create some great images.  This just isn't one of them at any size. 

b.   My belief is that anything in this world, even a deleted image from a PNS, is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.  I might think someone is spending their money unwisely, but that would be merely a personal observation and not a reflection on the art itself.  Would I have paid 4.3 million (assuming I could afford to) for this image?  Not on your life.  I wouldn't have paid anything, other than to pay someone to carry it to the rubbish bin. 

c.  So you've never offered an honest opinion in reference to "art?"  Or are you saying you've never seen a piece of rubbish masquerading as art?   IMO.. art doesn't exist without critics.  Critics critique and by doing so set the relative value (not necessarily monetary) of art.  It devalues art in general when we, for whatever reason, fail to give that honest critique we become responsible for when we endeavor to become a member of the community.

[dchew]

IMO.. art doesn't exist without critics.  

Hmm. I don't agree with that.  I think Art is defined by the creator's intent.  If it was created as a piece of art, then that's what it is. Regardless of how good or bad, accepted or critiqued, expensive or cheap or free.

Dave

[Steve Weldon]

Hmm. I don't agree with that.  I think Art is defined by the creator's intent.  If it was created as a piece of art, then that's what it is. Regardless of how good or bad, accepted or critiqued, expensive or cheap or free.

Dave

What "defines art" was not questioned.  Or defined.  We've got tons of threads in this forum alone seeking to define what constitutes art.  I'm not getting into that.

What I said was that "art cannot exist without critics."  (hint: This is a "if a tree falls in the forest" type of comment)  Or in other words.. every person whose senses (only the first five) falls upon that which is created.. judges it.  They do this without thought, instinctively as we'd admire a beautiful woman or be repulsed by a hideous mutant, or perhaps with intent, but we do judge.

So why such negative (and all too often elitist) reactions to those who provide an honest negative opinion/reaction to this image?  And why is it from those who claim to be educated in the arts?  Frankly I've been disappointed by those who claim to be so educated.  To a person they appear unable to respond without direct or indirect insults towards those who see the image differently.  And their only offered reasoning centers around "you don't understand because you're not educated.."  And they say this having no idea what the other persons educational background might be.  They just make the leap in reasoning that if someone doesn't see things the way they do.. then they can't possibly be educated.  Words speak loudly.