# Sometimes its surprising



## Overread (Nov 10, 2011)

or possibly shocking as to what constitutes high-value art/photography


Now I'm sure I've got some similar shots somewhere in my waste bin - I knew it was  good idea to hold onto them :mrgreen:


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Nov 10, 2011)

We're better than we think. I'm convinced after seeing this.


----------



## KenC (Nov 10, 2011)

He may be a shameless and efficient self-promoter.  Many artists have commanded high prices due to this sort of thing.  I looked him up and saw some much better shots than this one, although even those didn't seem to be worth millions, at least to me.  Possibly, he (or others) have created some sort of aura around owning one of his prints and this inflates prices.


----------



## Overread (Nov 10, 2011)

KenC - but of course; at this price the purchase of large amounts of art or photos is mostly to allow rich people to avoid taxes and put their cash into assets. It's a rather fake bubble that some of the super-rich build around these kind of thing in the hope that it at least retains its value if not increases in worth.


----------



## KenC (Nov 10, 2011)

Overread said:


> KenC - but of course; at this price the purchase of large amounts of art or photos is mostly to allow rich people to avoid taxes and put their cash into assets. It's a rather fake bubble that some of the super-rich build around these kind of thing in the hope that it at least retains its value if not increases in worth.



So this is the T206 Honus Wagner baseball card of the art photography world?


----------



## Futurelight (Nov 10, 2011)

It is a shock sometimes eh? Kinda like the infamous Tracy Emmin. Selling a pissed on bed for hundreds of thousands. Now, not to be too critical but, shouldn't that mean that every single child on the planet should be minted by now? lmao It's all a joke in the end.

P.s. In NO way do I mean I am better than anyone else. I just have my own humble opinion.


----------



## dxqcanada (Nov 10, 2011)

We just have to spend more time convincing other people that our images are beyond expression and capture the existential being of existence itself ... which is what we all want a piece of (and willing to pay big bucks for).


----------



## Trever1t (Nov 10, 2011)

4.3 million Pesos? Canadian Quarters? Wow.


----------



## MissCream (Nov 10, 2011)

Trever1t said:
			
		

> 4.3 million Pesos? Canadian Quarters? Wow.



Doubloons.


----------



## ThereSheGoes (Nov 10, 2011)

What.The.Eff?  My toddler's scribbles are more artistic than that!


----------



## dots (Nov 10, 2011)

MissCream said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Drachma


----------



## BlairWright (Nov 11, 2011)

Wow!!!


----------



## KmH (Nov 11, 2011)

FWIW, it is a mounted chromogenic print that is 12 feet wide by 6 feet high. It is face-mounted on plexiglass and it is signed (a key to it's perceived value) - 'Andreas Gursky' - on a paper label affixed to the backing board .

The tiny online image can't come anywhere near doing the image justice.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Nov 13, 2011)

LOL, I remember now why I left TPF. Seriously? Someone actually broke out the "my four-year-old can do better?" line? You realize there is more to photography than L-lenses and "bokeh", right? Some people actually uses cameras to create art.

 The art world is odd, I'll grant that gladly. But there are artists who have very specific vision, an EXTREMELY high level of craft, AND represent a certain school of expression. You would learn a LOT by understanding who Gursky is, and looking at his work. He is probably the most prominent photographer coming out of the Düsseldorf school, although I prefer Thomas Struth. Within that world, though not actual students of Bernd and Hilla Becher, are also Burtinsky and Misrach. They all have bodies of work that span 25+ years and are fully conceptualized, not just a cool snapshot that worked.

...but yeah, art world prices are hard to understand. Human vanities certainly play in to them... But not as a strategy to hide cash. A transaction that size comes with a receipt.


----------



## ryunin (Nov 13, 2011)

I thought something much more primitive would pop out. This stuff is at least VERY clever. Not my cup of tea, but clever. I don't feel much emotions there, rather calculation. I am not surprised it was sold expensive. Rich people are cynical, mostly.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Nov 14, 2011)

I don't anything about valuing photos or art, but I do really like the shot.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 14, 2011)

Overread said:


> "I've got some similar shots somewhere in my waste bin - I knew it was  good idea to hold onto them :mrgreen:



That was one reaction I got to my first show. Except the idiots saying it didn't hold on to the images in their waste bins.

Maybe you guys need to stop worrying so much about photography, and start thinking art. ART.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 14, 2011)

And I forgot. Go out to the galleries and museums someday, you might learn something more than by looking at art on your stupid computer.

I am ALWAYS, UTTERLY, AMaZED at how few people here actually visit galleries.


----------



## Overread (Nov 14, 2011)

But I'm a photographer and most certainly not an artist


----------



## bentcountershaft (Nov 14, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> And I forgot. Go out to the galleries and museums someday, you might learn something more than by looking at art on your stupid computer.
> 
> I am ALWAYS, UTTERLY, AMaZED at how few people here actually visit galleries.



In person?  No 3D imaging, no IMAX just pictures on a wall?  I don't know, seems too easy, like a trap.  Will there be pie?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 15, 2011)

Overread said:


> But I'm a photographer and most certainly not an artist



That may be true in the sense that for most macro work artistry is not the most important. But, of two macro shots of the same spider, one straight on and one with some artistic value to it, which one will get picked?

Well, actually, you may be right. I believe I've mentioned here before that the best selling stock photo in Europe (maybe it was just France) was of a box turtle on a square of grass. Nothing artistic to it. Just a clean, clear shot of the turtle with no annoying background. At the same time, you have to consider this as a fluke. You stand a much better chance of selling your work if it is a bit different.

And you had a couple threads not that long ago showing some interest in the artistic side of it all... I dare to hope that it was because you realized that adding a touch of art to your shots would not hurt them. Even if they are nothing more than technical shots.



Yes bent..., in person. And no, no pie.

Unless your mom wants to make us one. I know my mom would.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 15, 2011)

FWIW, The piece of museum plexi on which it's mounted probably cost $15K.


----------



## sm4him (Nov 15, 2011)

KmH said:


> FWIW, it is a mounted chromogenic print that is 12 feet wide by 6 feet high. It is face-mounted on plexiglass and it is signed (a key to it's perceived value) - 'Andreas Gursky' - on a paper label affixed to the backing board .
> 
> The tiny online image can't come anywhere near doing the image justice.



My initial response when I read this was to say that you're right, a tiny online image can't possibly do justice to what you've described as the original....but I still gotta wonder if the original image "does justice" to the price tag of _*4.3 million*_...

And I admit, I kept looking at the image, thinking...well, thinking it was NOT worth that kind of money, or possibly ANY kind of money.

But, I also gotta admit...as I was staring at the photo, ready to really bash it...the voice of my youngest son came into my head...from back when he was only about 9 years old...he was an artist then, and is an artist now. They had been doing a little "study"--elementary school style, on artists, and had learned about Matisse, Picasso, etc.  I'm sure most of the kids learned just enough to pass a test, but my son evidently soaked up every last bit of information, and then some, on these artists, because a few months later, I humorously (I thought) and evidently quite mistakenly, made a disparaging remark about a piece of art, likened it to some of Picasso's works, and said something to the effect of "I just don't really get it."

My 9-year-old son proceeded to give me Down-The-Road about Picasso's remarkable talent and style, as well as a lesson in art interpretation and appreciation.  Honestly, I STILL don't know where he got all that information, at NINE years old!!  But it taught me one thing...I have a "good eye," I can even make a pretty picture (photograph or otherwise) from time to time, and I definitely "know what I like"...but I DO. NOT. Know Art.

So, I think I'll refrain from those disparaging comments about this photograph...but I DO think I'll have to show it to my son and see what HE says...


----------



## dots (Nov 15, 2011)

bentcountershaft said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > And I forgot. Go out to the galleries and museums someday, you might learn something more than by looking at art on your stupid computer.
> ...



Pie?


Ahh


Squared.


----------



## SCraig (Nov 15, 2011)

My philosophy toward art is much like my philosophy toward wine:  If someone has to explain to me why I should like it I'd rather just have a beer.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 15, 2011)

bentcountershaft said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > And I forgot. Go out to the galleries and museums someday, you might learn something more than by looking at art on your stupid computer.
> ...



If you go to the openings there may not be pie, but wine, and cheese, and other nibbles. The last gallery show I went to was a full on catered event. The food was amazing!


----------



## KmH (Nov 15, 2011)

Alpha said:


> FWIW, The piece of museum plexi on which it's mounted probably cost $15K.


I want to know where he got a 12 foot by 6 foot piece of chromogenic paper, and how it was exposed and then chemically processed (usually kodak RA-4 chemistry).

He made the photo in 1999, and I would like to know what camera (large format?) and film he used. Nikon's first DSLR (1999) was the $5500 (1999 $$$'s), _2.7 MP_ D1,


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Nov 15, 2011)

Iron Flatline said:


> LOL, I remember now why I left TPF. Seriously? Someone actually broke out the "my four-year-old can do better?" line? You realize there is more to photography than L-lenses and "bokeh", right? Some people actually uses cameras to create art.
> 
> The art world is odd, I'll grant that gladly. But there are artists who have very specific vision, an EXTREMELY high level of craft, AND represent a certain school of expression. You would learn a LOT by understanding who Gursky is, and looking at his work. He is probably the most prominent photographer coming out of the Düsseldorf school, although I prefer Thomas Struth. Within that world, though not actual students of Bernd and Hilla Becher, are also Burtinsky and Misrach. They all have bodies of work that span 25+ years and are fully conceptualized, not just a cool snapshot that worked.
> 
> ...but yeah, art world prices are hard to understand. Human vanities certainly play in to them... But not as a strategy to hide cash. A transaction that size comes with a receipt.


Thank you. I was about to post something very similar, but you beat me to it. 


I don't consider myself an artist (yet), but I do have my degree in Fine Art, and I can fully appreciate this photograph. Let me tell you why:

We are _bombarded_ with images everyday, and most of them are more visually stimulating than Gursky's latest sale, no doubt. But I can garuntee the vast majority of people here didn't even know Gursky existed before news of this sale went live. The vast majority here also have never heard of, or seen the photograph _99 cent_. This is also by Gursky, and at one time, the most expensive photograph in the world. 



And that's ok. Because it's all about context. Most people do not function within the context of Fine Art. 


Take Flickr for example..
What we see on Flickr is usually created for three main purposes: 

Social practice, such as sharing vacation images or snapshots with others from a central location.

Commercial practice, using Flickr to reach a wider audience in order to sell/coordinate workshops, prints, proofs, or using it for hosting.

And educational practice, using Flickr to look at, and post experimental images and interact with other people in similar situations.



Art is designed to be conceptually analyzed, deconstructed, challenged. Art asks questions. Art takes an abstract idea, perspective, history, or concept and makes it tangible or accessible.

Social, commercial, and educational practices outside of a critical context rarely challenge anything besides technical ability or visual stimulation.


Art exits outside of the social norm, which is why most people don't understand it.


Gursky's work is distanced, dispassionate, and unless seen in person, impersonal. If you don't think about the price, what do you _feel_ with Gursky's photograph? 





That's the question you should be asking yourself, "What do I feel?" not "why is this picture worth 4.5 million?"


----------



## Alpha (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm sure it was large format film. Could be done with a mural enlarger. The paper would probably have to be specially ordered.



KmH said:


> Alpha said:
> 
> 
> > FWIW, The piece of museum plexi on which it's mounted probably cost $15K.
> ...


----------



## JAC526 (Nov 15, 2011)

I like the photo.

Also think about the difference viewing it on your tiny monitor and standing in front of a 12 feet by 6 feet print.

Totally different viewing experience.


----------



## dots (Nov 15, 2011)

I liked Rhein II. 4.3 mill is a bit steep though  Did anyone else here consider the date - 1999?. I thought about reunification..'demarcation' - the view from one bank to the other (only metaphorically - the course of the Rhine extending south rather than 'East'; but it's _Die Quelle des Mutterlandes_)


----------



## unpopular (Nov 16, 2011)

Art is often overpriced, but the price people are willing to pay doesn't I validate the artwork.I don't understand why people insist that photography must always be so bold and dynamic. It's like there is no room of subtly. I think often when looking at images like this it goes against people's sensibilities about what photography should always be: something exciting in one way or another, even images that are peaceful and still have this intoxicating quality which in itself shows a certain boldness.

I feel kind of overwhelmed by all this extravagance to the point of nausea. Art doesn't need to be about glitter.


----------



## dots (Nov 16, 2011)

Often it isn't people at this level..it's corporate and institutional procurement. Commodification. Investment. 20 mill for a van Gogh is crass on so many levels. Would have bought a lot of potatoes for the miners of the Borinage, non?



unpopular said:


> Art is often overpriced, but the price people are willing to pay doesn't I validate the artwork.I don't understand why people insist that photography must always be so bold and dynamic. It's like there is no room of subtly. I think often when looking at images like this it goes against people's sensibilities about what photography should always be: something exciting in one way or another, even images that are peaceful and still have this intoxicating quality which in itself shows a certain boldness.
> 
> I feel kind of overwhelmed by all this extravagance to the point of nausea. Art doesn't need to be about glitter.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 16, 2011)

Has anyone even mentioned yet that this image is 7x12 feet? Yes. FEET. And that maybe, just maybe, something has been lost in translation as it was rescaled to about 2 by 4 INCHES?

Having read that, nobody here, unless they have seen the image in person can say anything about it. The experience would completely are utterly mis-translate between seeing it in person and seeing it in life.

IDK. If this were a Rothko would we be so shocked, awed and even horrified? No, in fact, it would might be a steal.

Photographers are their own worse enemy.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Nov 16, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > c.cloudwalker said:
> ...



Free food?  I'm ready for that.  I don't know if the art world is ready for me just yet though.  Oh well, they'll just have to suck it up.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 17, 2011)

bentcountershaft said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > bentcountershaft said:
> ...



The art world IS ready for you... so long as they can figure out a way of selling you 

But openings are a great way to get free food. The last opening I went to in the US was in Athens, GA, a gallery that opens 2 days a week with an owner that barely knows what she's doing (her words) but felt she had to have the event catered instead of just offering wine and cheese like most. The art didn't do much for me but the food and booze was just great and, with a few friends, we stayed till the end. And because we were all staying in the building, we didn't care how drunk we got 

Anyway, the art world is weird and unpredictable and I've sayed it here before. One movie I love on the subject is Pecker by John Waters. If you haven't seen it, rent it, watch it. It ends with the new boy wonder of photography, Pecker, being replaced by the almighty blind photographer :lmao:

If you like this movie be very careful what else you rent from this guy. John Waters, however much I love him, is not a family friendly movie kind of guy...

Now, to get back to this photo, I don't get it either, but  1/ I haven't seen it in real life; 2/ I know how much of a difference it can make to see a piece of art in real life; 3/ no matter what, I'm happy for the guy and for all photogs because this sale helps all photo artists.


----------



## dots (Nov 17, 2011)

unpopular said:


> nobody here, unless they have seen the image in person can say anything about it.


 Says who? I can imagine it "big". In a gallery. I like it. Stop asserting crap on behalf of others you don't know.


----------



## bazooka (Nov 17, 2011)

What a freakin' noob, he put the horizon right in the middle.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Nov 17, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



I bolded the important part.  I like what I shoot, I'm gaining confidence in my abilities in the things I shoot but I can't imagine anyone paying for what I shoot.  Not because of quality but subject matter.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 17, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> One movie I love on the subject is Pecker by John Waters. If you haven't seen it, rent it, watch it. It ends with the new boy wonder of photography, Pecker, being replaced by the almighty blind photographer :lmao:


Full of Grace!  Full of Grace!

I love Pecker!

John Waters is awesome!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 18, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > One movie I love on the subject is Pecker by John Waters. If you haven't seen it, rent it, watch it. It ends with the new boy wonder of photography, Pecker, being replaced by the almighty blind photographer :lmao:
> ...



And as awesome in person as his movies are. "This Filthy World" is an awesome monologue if you haven't seen it.

I got to meet the man through common friends when I first moved to the DC area and he is definitely my kind of insane person. Back then, before he became somewhat "Hollywood famous," he was very approachable. Few people really knew who he was outside of Baltimore 

But the reason I'm telling you this is that there is another little lesson about (photography) and the arts here. Not for you really, Bitter, I think you already understand what I'm about to say. One needs to keep one's ears (and mind) open to the possibilities. When I first moved to that area I knew nothing of it but I soon found out it was very big in the theater so I started meeting people involved in that which led me to find out that DC is the second movie area in the US after Hollywood. Yeah, I know, hard to believe but it was back then. I have no idea if it still is.

Anyway, both the theater and the movie industry there were major possibilities for photo work. One just had to hold on tight and ride the waves.

I got to spent a lot of time on one of Waters' shoot and it helped me later when I went and shot some documentaries. I also worked (photo wise) with a bunch of theater people which led to work with music people... etc, etc.


----------



## RobertDarasz (Dec 4, 2011)

First things first: They see me rolin'... they hatin'. So what - somebody had the money and bought it for more than 4 million, obviously for that particular person it was worth the money. I don't understand people getting upset because this photo was sold for such high price. First of all you didn't buy it, it's not your money, you don't have to pay for it. You should be happy you got the opportunity to see the thumbnail of this photograph.

Besides - it's Gursky we're talking about. And behind his success lies something some of us don't have: Consistancy in the kind of art he's doing, years of hard work and (let's face it) what matters most in this business - good reputation and a name. His pieces are very complex and highly detailed scrupulous montages, it takes skill and sophisticated taste to do something like that. 

Oh, and PS. I don't see anyone bitching about paintings being sold for higher prizes than this photo.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 5, 2011)

dots said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > nobody here, unless they have seen the image in person can say anything about it.
> ...



If you haven't seen it in person, then you have not experienced it. You've experienced your expectation of what the artwork should be, but not what it actually is.

So stop whining already. Seriously. It's pathetic.


----------

