Andreas Gursky - take a hike !

[Theodoros]

On the Internet, just like most other mortals.
I don't care how big he blows it up, it's a boring snapshot that sold so high because of who shot it. Put it up on Flickr under some nobody's name and no one would give it a second look.

OOOH... it's the internet picture that have costed the money... I see... LOL 

[synn]

Speak English please. You type words, but they don't make a lot of sense when read together.

[Theodoros]

Speak English please. You type words, but they don't make a lot of sense when read together.

I know... LOL...

[RobertJ]

But did he use a Phase One digital back?  Because if he used the Pentax 645Z instead, it's only worth $3 million AT BEST...

[JV]

Put it up on Flickr under some nobody's name and no one would give it a second look.

Unfortunately that can be said for almost all pictures on Flickr that do not have a sexy thumbnail, this one probably being one of the best know examples:
http://petapixel.com/2011/07/13/why-you-shouldnt-give-too-much-weight-to-anonymous-online-critics/

[D!RK]

Rhein Ii is a boring image when you see it on the internet. Some would say that it is boring even in a gallery. The thing is that the river Rhein is boring in many places. It mostly runs in an artificial bed with just some grass around it. Most photographers would have been tempted to wait for sunset or sunrise. Or they would have put a boat, tree, or a biker into it, or just some blue sky with dreamy clouds. Or they would have added some angles to make it look more dramatic than it is. It feels like a boring snapshot because it is a perfect representation of the river without any added photography fluff. Would it have gotton many likes on Flickr? Probably not. I grew up in that area and when I first saw the print it pulled me right into it. It is like being there. For that the size matters. While the river is not asthetically great, it has a presence through size. Gursky didn't try to make things better than they are, a very typical approach in photography. He focused on creating the most reduced portrait of that river. What he did is technically difficult, not just from a printing perspective but from a capturing perspective. It it easy to stitch a few shots together to get that angle but to capture the detail of the waves and grass is impressive. Try it. Yes, someone would get more Likes by adding saturated colors and a bridge. People like that. But that has been done millions times before and won't get anybody anywhere in the art world anymore. Too often we follow images that we have seen before. Ask people to take a photo of Route 66 and most likely you will get a romantic image with some old cars, not what it actually looks like. It is like following a default.  Stephen Shore changed that in the 70s and he has influenced people like Gursky. Gursky has created his very own contemporary approach and that made him super sucessful. I would highly recommend to see photography and any Art in its original form. Even Ansel Adams original photos look different than in the books or on posters.

[amolitor]

Are you kidding? Lik's work is exactly the sort of trite overwrought thing that does brilliantly on flickr.

Assuming you've done the spadework of following a few thousand people, to build up a few thousand followers, and joined/posted to a giant collection of groups to get the exposure you want.

It's easy, pretty, unchallenging stuff which can be judged purely on how pretty it is and how technically excellent it is. It would do very very well on flickr, and all the other photo sharing social network thingies.

[JV]

But did he use a Phase One digital back?  Because if he used the Pentax 645Z instead, it's only worth $3 million AT BEST...

I would say less...  the Phase One is 4 times as expensive, so the resulting picture must be 4 times as good and expensive as well, right...?

[Hulyss]

Speak English please. You type words, but they don't make a lot of sense when read together.

strange fact is that you never said that to me before.

I'm not king of photographers but I'm king of strange English sentences.

[Theodoros]

Rhein Ii is a boring image when you see it on the internet. Some would say that it is boring even in a gallery. The thing is that the river Rhein is boring in many places. It mostly runs in an artificial bed with just some grass around it. Most photographers would have been tempted to wait for sunset or sunrise. Or they would have put a boat, tree, or a biker into it, or just some blue sky with dreamy clouds. Or they would have added some angles to make it look more dramatic than it is. It feels like a boring snapshot because it is a perfect representation of the river without any added photography fluff. Would it have gotton many likes on Flickr? Probably not. I grew up in that area and when I first saw the print it pulled me right into it. It is like being there. For that the size matters. While the river is not asthetically great, it has a presence through size. Gursky didn't try to make things better than they are, a very typical approach in photography. He focused on creating the most reduced portrait of that river. What he did is technically difficult, not just from a printing perspective but from a capturing perspective. It it easy to stitch a few shots together to get that angle but to capture the detail of the waves and grass is impressive. Try it. Yes, someone would get more Likes by adding saturated colors and a bridge. People like that. But that has been done millions times before and won't get anybody anywhere in the art world anymore. Too often we follow images that we have seen before. Ask people to take a photo of Route 66 and most likely you will get a romantic image with some old cars, not what it actually looks like. It is like following a default.  Stephen Shore changed that in the 70s and he has influenced people like Gursky. Gursky has created his very own contemporary approach and that made him super sucessful. I would highly recommend to see photography and any Art in its original form. Even Ansel Adams original photos look different than in the books or on posters.

To all surprise I bothered to read ALL this...  yes I did!

Never the less my opinion of Gursky's A-MAZ-ING image of the Rhein... has nothing to do with the Rhein... or how the Rhein is presented, or its environment or its power, or what the waters is... or the reality...

IMO it's an AMAZING shot that works in three dimentionality like NO OTHER ever... (not even of Adam's other AMAZING shot of the moon clocking in between rocks as an oscillator), that origins it's DEPTH and three dimentionality (using lighting for its amazing depth) from ancient Greek philosophy of mathematics and balance to an extent that "stupid watchers" of snaps can't realise or have a relation with... It's pure Genius of balance... It challenges philosophy by its presence, It DEMANDS its presence (and admittance - influence) in the environmental balance of existence or simple presence and that makes it THE BEST PHOTO ever taken... as simple as that! ...and of course none gives a dime of what ignorants on codes of art or "photographers" of BS think... as simple as that (said once more)!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

But what if his photography is not photography... but business? ...Does it then applies the same? Is then anybody (that is a "business man" able to put food on the table for 250 families - which he doesn't - Al Capone included) a "deserve respect" person? ....What about  those that can provide food for ...2500 families or 25000 families after they are dead? (and do provide it) ...Do they deserve less respect? ...Surely it's more complicated than that with art... it's more complicated than counting things with ...(todays) money for sure.

Well, that was quite... silly, to put it politely. I specifically added "with his photography" to avoid that kind of smart-ass comment you made, involving Al Capone (seriously!?), or any other business or criminal enterprise. The rest of your questions are simply non sequitur , i.e., conclusions that do not follow from what I said.

You seem to have a rather narrow and very personal interpretation of what photography and art is or isn't. That is fine if it works for you, but I tend to disagree. I also understand that you are not going to change your opinion because because of anything I might say on the subject. And vice versa.

I consider Peter Lik a fine art photographer, just as I consider myself so. Not because I think he or I are such great Artists (with a capital A), but simply because the way I use the term "fine art." For me, it is simply a way to distinguish it from, say, wedding photography, or sports photography, or fashion, product, commercial, etc., when someone asks what I do. I consider myself (and him) to be simply photographers, not Artists, though I think we both have some basic artistic tendencies and inclinations.

[Theodoros]

Well, that was quite... silly, to put it politely. I specifically added "with his photography" to avoid that kind of smart-ass comment you made, involving Al Capone (seriously!?), or any other business or criminal enterprise. The rest of your questions are simply non sequitur , i.e., conclusions that do not follow from what I said.

You seem to have a rather narrow and very personal interpretation of what photography and art is or isn't. That is fine if it works for you, but I tend to disagree. I also understand that you are not going to change your opinion because because of anything I might say on the subject. And vice versa.

I consider Peter Lik a fine art photographer, just as I consider myself so. Not because I think he or I are such great Artists (with a capital A), but simply because the way I use the term "fine art." For me, it is simply a way to distinguish it from, say, wedding photography, or sports photography, or fashion, product, commercial, etc., when someone asks what I do. I consider myself (and him) to be simply photographers, not Artists, though I think we both have some basic artistic tendencies and inclinations.

Let's hear on your (supported with reasoning) explanation of what art is then... I made mine clear (and fully supported) on my last post... Let me "bring it up once more"...

"Never the less my opinion of Gursky's A-MAZ-ING image of the Rhein... has nothing to do with the Rhein... or how the Rhein is presented, or its environment or its power, or what the waters is... or the reality...
IMO it's an AMAZING shot that works in three dimentionality like NO OTHER ever... (not even of Adam's other AMAZING shot of the moon clocking in between rocks as an oscillator), that origins it's DEPTH and three dimentionality (using lighting for its amazing depth) from ancient Greek philosophy of mathematics and balance to an extent that "stupid watchers" of snaps can't realise or have a relation with... It's pure Genius of balance... It challenges philosophy by its presence, It DEMANDS its presence (and admittance - influence) in the environmental balance of existence or simple presence and that makes it THE BEST PHOTO ever taken... as simple as that! ...and of course none gives a dime of what ignorants on codes of art or "photographers" of BS think... as simple as that (said once more)!"

But I won't take anymore "bold statements" of art that are based on "I like..." (without reasoning) or "this is technical" (without explaining what "right" technicality would be) or other nonsense... Reasoning only exists if one can support it... otherwise it's all "blah-blah" talking of thin air... It's like Erik non ever answering the simple question "is a test of other applicant to other"? ...that you supported Erik's side by saying nothing... as you do above...
To the subject please... on specifics, with (supported and explained) reasoning behind it... Please refer to your codes of what art means to you in other words... but speak about codes... not "I like" stuff.. otherwise I'll use my 87's year old aunt's logic to back up reasoning... (it will make it sound Babel... but she insists it's logic to an extend that none ...logical... will bother to argue anymore).

[ondebanks]

I'm not king of photographers but I'm king of strange English sentences.

I've never had any trouble understanding what you write, because (a) you organize your thoughts well before committing them to text, and (b) you do write in normal sentences, with a minimum of sub-clauses and tangents to keep track of. Once those basics are there, a few slips (in grammar, spelling, or the precise meaning of words) don't really matter.

Theodoros, on the other hand...I do try, but my concentration collapses after the 13th clause in the same sentence.

Ray

[RobertJ]

I would say less...  the Phase One is 4 times as expensive, so the resulting picture must be 4 times as good and expensive as well, right...?

Ah yes, you're right!  Should be a little over $1.5 million with the Pentax, $6.5 million if shot with the Phase One.  My bad.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Let's hear on your (supported with reasoning) explanation of what art is then...

There are subjects worth debating on the Internet. "What is art" is not one of them, at least not for me, not with you, not now, and not related to the OP issue.

[D!RK]

You are right Theodoro that there is a lot of Blabla in the art world. Mostly done by art dealers and critics, less by artists themselves. Explaining what Art is is going nowhere. Art is anything that anybody declares to be Art. Like anybody can declare him or herself to be an artist, or fine artist. So there is a lot of stuff out there that people say is Art. Then there is the Art Business. In some cases it works like a self fulfilling prophecy. A famous gallerist selects something and says it is influencial and because the famous gallery selected it it actually becomes influencial. You get yourself into one of the well known galleries and the prophecy may start to fulfill itself. But here and there you have people who try very new things and they actually influence a lot of other people in their craft. Besides being known for his mass event photography, Gursky is known for his large scale prints, which were unknown at the time he started those. Suddenly photo art was at the same scale as large paintings in museums. It changed people's perception of photography. Actually Gursky wouldn't decribe his work as photography. Most pieces are time consuming collages created out of photos, showing a scenario that in that form never existed. So is Rhein Ii the most amazing photo ever, or Peter Lik's work? No, of course not. Not even Gursky would claim that. ( not sure about Lik so). The price is just a reflection of an investment potential. It is an investment, like a house. While personal taste may be one factor, the hope for some return in the long run is important. And most investors believe that Gursky's work will still be relevant in a few years. Is the most expensive house the best house ever. Probably not. Most people wouldn't even like it. Is it worth the bricks and wood being used to build it? No. There are other criteria that would determin the price. For houses it is location and size. For Artwork it is reputation, influence of the craft, amount of pieces available, promise of future work and interest in the artist. And size as well. Larger prints get higher prices. It is all a mix of talent, marketing, and lots of talk. Gursky leaves the last two to his dealers. He doesn't run a website or talks about his work. Lik does that through his own channels. They are both sucessful in their ways at their individual levels. Don't like that, do it your way.

[Manoli]

... For Artwork it is reputation, influence of the craft, amount of pieces available, promise of future work and interest in the artist. And size as well. Larger prints get higher prices. It is all a mix of talent, marketing, and lots of talk.

Gursky's grandfather was a photographer and his father is still one. Gursky first studied at the Folkwang School in Essen, then from 1981 to 1987 at the Academy of Art in Düsseldorf. He was a master-class student of Bernd Becher and started his career as one of Becher’s shooting stars like Thomas Struth, Candida Höfer and Thomas Ruff.

Gursky has not only photographed Prada, but also fashion shows, basket weavers in Vietnam, Formula One racing, the Tokyo stock exchange and the Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong, along with huge concerts and a spectacular political rally in North Korea. He has even used satellite images for his Ocean series. He succeeds at mass depictions such as have not hitherto been seen. Work, sport, politics – he shrinks from no subject.

He has a track record - both commercial and artistic. Lik has neither.

His claim to a proprietary and top-secret new printing technology borders on the preposterous. His website offer to both educate and accommodate newcomers into his his world of 'ultra-high-end fine art' sales is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad for commission-based 'runners'. His LasVegas factory, 250 employees, 14 galleries are financed how - from sales? I doubt it.

His balance sheets and IRS returns would make for interesting reading.

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.

[Theodoros]

Gursky's grandfather was a photographer and his father is still one. Gursky first studied at the Folkwang School in Essen, then from 1981 to 1987 at the Academy of Art in Düsseldorf. He was a master-class student of Bernd Becher and started his career as one of Becher’s shooting stars like Thomas Struth, Candida Höfer and Thomas Ruff.

Gursky has not only photographed Prada, but also fashion shows, basket weavers in Vietnam, Formula One racing, the Tokyo stock exchange and the Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong, along with huge concerts and a spectacular political rally in North Korea. He has even used satellite images for his Ocean series. He succeeds at mass depictions such as have not hitherto been seen. Work, sport, politics – he shrinks from no subject.

He has a track record - both commercial and artistic. Lik has neither.

His claim to a proprietary and top-secret new printing technology borders on the preposterous. His website offer to both educate and accommodate newcomers into his his world of 'ultra-high-end fine art' sales is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad for commission-based 'runners'. His LasVegas factory, 250 employees, 14 galleries are financed how - from sales? I doubt it.

His balance sheets and IRS returns would make for interesting reading.

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 think that's the kind of post you should have done at the first place Manoli...

IMO, what makes Gursky's work so special, is the fact that he makes so obvious the visualisation path until the final print... Gursky doesn't look at a scene and says "Hey, that's nice, lets shoot it" as most "photographers" do... Instead, he works the same way as any other artist (a painter. an author...), he visualises the print first and then designed the path to achieve it, exactly like he visualised it... The size, the subject, the lighting, the coding of the message involved (i.e the presentation of the subject) has all been pre-decided and the technical path has been pre designed and pre decided... and this all he makes obvious on the final result.

Now, one can't imagine a painter that grabs his brush and starts painting without first having visualised the final painting... can it be otherwise? Neither an author can start writing a novel, unless he first has visualised the scenario, the characters, their looks, the lighting, the environment that will be in the novel...

Visualisation is the fundamental behind art, photographs without visualisation behind them cannot be art (by definition of art)... After all, Adams has spend the whole chapter in his very first book on the mater... but let's hear him on video speaking on the subject... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT-G42cskH4

[Manoli]

Scott Reither
blog post - a first hand account:

Later in our dialogue, some of the Lik gallery…“selling techniques” began to come to light.  Of course I am not surprised – I’ve been hearing them for years, but I suppose I am still a bit surprised that people believe everything they are told.  This customer was told that Lik uses a special “patented” print and only his prints react to light this way.  Hah!  Lik has a patent on Fuji Supergloss?!  Doesn’t every art gallery in the world take prospects into the viewing room to show how light interplays with the art?  Of course they do!  One of the other hilarious ones that I used to hear a lot while working on Front Street was that Lik was one of only a few people on the planet to know how to operate a Linhof 617.  I guess myself, and the other photographer I worked with at the time, were the other two, unbeknownst to us!  Or, that he only shoots film and doesn’t use photoshop (this was a big one back when I worked for him years ago).  Or, more lately, that he uses digital but reintroduces the digital file back into film in order to make a true photographic print.  What!?  Who believes this stuff?

and,
back when I worked for him :

This focus on make-believe value was another interesting shift in Lik’s career.  Soon enough, they realized that having the $25+k Artist Proofs (AP) helped sell the $3k and $4k pieces.  Someone would fall in love with a piece that was being showed as an AP and be told is was $32,000!  Their heart sank knowing they could not afford that, and then they’d offer you a “regular edition” piece for only $3700.  What a bargain!  You were sold.

[Manoli]

Theodore,

Congratulations on the much improved presentation - it makes your posts both easier to read and understand !

It's an interesting topic and I don't disagree with your post above but it's not directly related to the central topic of this thread, which you queried and I answered in post #33. There are 'serious' commercial and ethical issues raised by this, as yet,  'unsubstantiated' announcement and that is what I sought to highlight in starting this thread.

M