Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Record for any photo sold at auction set in NYC  (Read 17183 times)
DeeJay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 250


« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2011, 05:31:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Amazing. I'm so glad it sold for that much. Arts value is fixed by the person buying it.

Who cares what it means to anyone else.

I'm so glad that photography as an art form can fetch these brilliant prices. Hopefully they will continue to rise.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 05:33:25 PM by DeeJay » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2011, 08:03:43 PM »
ReplyReply

 What a bunch of complete nonsense.  

First, those of you claiming "sour grapes" are way off track and this is such a tired response it only merits a response if that response shows criticism for lack of thought.   The comments have been to understand, to express an opinion.  Nothing more.  A little bit of intellectual honesty would go a long way in such discussions.

I looked at this image and my first response was "it looks like something my wife would delete from her point and shoot."  I only looked the first time not because it visually caught my attention, but because the price it sold for caught my attention.   I looked a second time and saw nothing to change my initial opinion.  To my eyes it's boring and lacking in so many ways it's not worth getting in to.

I am interested in the back story.  There much be a reason this image fetched 4.3 million and this reason holds far more interest to me.. than the image itself.  

Its immaterial how nice his other works is.  An image selling for 4.3 million should be able to stand on it's own merits.  

And it doesn't matter to me how big this print is, or how much detail it holds.  A large highly detailed image of a fresh elephant dropping is still just that.  An elephant dropping.  Which btw holds more interest than this image.  To me.

Get a ruler out?  Really?  Must be a new way to appreciate art I've never heard of, which frankly wouldn't surprise me.  But I'm not interested to get a ruler out and measure anything.  This image doesn't inspire me to do so.

I understand a Buggati Veybron Grand Sport at roughly 2.5 million.  I can appreciate it's art, it's engineering, it's function.  I can understand the visceral emotions it brings at the base level.



I can't understand this image.  And I'd bet money you could choose an image of Flickr by random and put it head to head in a public taste test and the random Flickr image would win.

If it makes some of you feel better to tell the rest of us "we don't get it" then fine.  You've found a value in a rather boring image.  But it's not going to make me pause for a second.  It is what it is.  
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 08:05:53 PM by Steve Weldon » Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Chris Livsey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 307



« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2011, 03:44:28 AM »
ReplyReply


Laurence Stephen Lowry  The Sea 1963

http://www.thelowry.com/gifts-and-souvenirs/prints-and-limited-editions/the-sea-1963
Logged

Chris Livsey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2011, 04:57:55 AM »
ReplyReply


Heck I like this picture a lot better, I'm actually a big fan of Lowry, his rendition of people has been an inspiration to me. I grew up in Salford as he did.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 05:00:10 AM by Ben Rubinstein » Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2011, 12:34:45 PM »
ReplyReply

What a bunch of complete nonsense.  

First, those of you claiming "sour grapes" are way off track and this is such a tired response it only merits a response if that response shows criticism for lack of thought.   The comments have been to understand, to express an opinion.  Nothing more.  A little bit of intellectual honesty would go a long way in such discussions.

I looked at this image and my first response was "it looks like something my wife would delete from her point and shoot."  I only looked the first time not because it visually caught my attention, but because the price it sold for caught my attention.   I looked a second time and saw nothing to change my initial opinion.  To my eyes it's boring and lacking in so many ways it's not worth getting in to.

I am interested in the back story.  There much be a reason this image fetched 4.3 million and this reason holds far more interest to me.. than the image itself.  

Its immaterial how nice his other works is.  An image selling for 4.3 million should be able to stand on it's own merits.  

And it doesn't matter to me how big this print is, or how much detail it holds.  A large highly detailed image of a fresh elephant dropping is still just that.  An elephant dropping.  Which btw holds more interest than this image.  To me.

Get a ruler out?  Really?  Must be a new way to appreciate art I've never heard of, which frankly wouldn't surprise me.  But I'm not interested to get a ruler out and measure anything.  This image doesn't inspire me to do so.

I understand a Buggati Veybron Grand Sport at roughly 2.5 million.  I can appreciate it's art, it's engineering, it's function.  I can understand the visceral emotions it brings at the base level.



I can't understand this image.  And I'd bet money you could choose an image of Flickr by random and put it head to head in a public taste test and the random Flickr image would win.

If it makes some of you feel better to tell the rest of us "we don't get it" then fine.  You've found a value in a rather boring image.  But it's not going to make me pause for a second.  It is what it is.  

Steve, Gursky is been in the art circuit for ages.

The biggest world museums are hanging his work. I personally saw some of his picture and they really impress. Is a recognized artist exactly like Picasso was. You may not like all Picasso work, or none of his work, it's fine. I personally do not like Ansel Adams. I do not understand him, I do not vibrate with his work. But it's not because it doesn't touch me that I can't recognize the importance and the talent.

If I pointed the composition, is only to stress that there is a clear intention and that the guy doesn't just take a picture. I mean the horizon is exactly in the middle and the composition obeis to a so precise pattern that it can not be unintentional. I do not need the ruler, because I have a fine arts studdy and that's something you end to see simply because they train you to see it. I draw the lines for the people who are less trained to see those things immediatly, and it was just to point that there is a systematic intention in his work and that this image is more than just "I shoot the river where I do my jogging".

You rarely hang your work in all the ww museums just because you're a good sailer, or you have a good agent. This image, IMO is a perfection in terms of composition and rythm, and this perfection gives it a sort of "divine" dimension, or in other words, he makes the big exists within a simple subject.

You can say that this pic would be one your wife would delete. But the reality is that Gursky saw something there and didn't delete it. If people are giving him credit as one of the most important photographer today is because they think his vision and expression have value. A lot of value, included monetary.

But I have never criticized the fact that this image is not touching people. What I do yes criticize, is a certain form of arrogance in some posts because somebody doesn't like it. It remind me the reaction of some of the photographic comunity about Mario Testino, that he is where he is just because he has contacts.

Just my 2 cents thoughts.

Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2011, 01:27:48 PM »
ReplyReply

... First, those of you claiming "sour grapes" are way off track and this is such a tired response...

Steve,

I will be the first to admit that "sour grapes" is a tired response.

But isn't it equally tired to get on a soapbox and yell through the bullhorn how you (rhetorical you) do not get it? How a five-year old, your mother-in-law, your dumb cousin could do the same in five minutes or less (why didn't they?). And this is not restricted to Gursky or photography. It works for most of the modern art. Take, for example, "White on White" painting by Kazimir Malevich in MoMA (NY) collection.

If you (again, rhetorical you) do not get it, what is the point of broadcasting your ignorance to the rest of the world as a badge of honor? As they say, it is better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you are stupid, then open it and remove any doubt.

I may or may not get it either (or if I do, I still may not like it), but i get it that there are people who do. Why immediately hurl insults in their direction: "art world really has nothing to do with art", "crap", "rich guy showing off", to cite a few "thoughtful" responses.

When I was growing up, displaying your ignorance publicly was not considered a virtue. I guess a lot has changed since the Internet.

Quote
... I'd bet money you could choose an image of Flickr by random and put it head to head in a public taste test and the random Flickr image would win...

Since when has a mass taste been the supreme measure of artistic value? If that would be the case, the most valuable artistic creation of all times would be... "Star Wars" movie?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 04:27:09 PM by Slobodan Blagojevic » Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2011, 01:43:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred and Slobodan,

Great responses but your not going to change anybody's mind when it comes to art and money, especially on a forum that leans towards the technical aspect of photography.

Let's face it some people are overpowered by Testino's work, some just see a skinny girl shot on polaroid . . . to each his own.

Same with Gursky, some see a supermarket, some see art.

The point I was trying to make is any photograph that goes for huge money raises the bar for everyone, the artist, the serious professional and even the snapshot photographer.

For my entire adult life, I've heard photographers say "I could shoot that".    Maybe, maybe not, but as Slobodan says, why didn't they.

Shooting it is one thing, but working to put your self in a position where someone will pay you to shoot it is a whole 'nother animal.

It's funny, we use to have an assistant that had a constant line of "I'd never pay that much for a _______."    He might be talking about cameras, cars, art, houses, it didn't matter, just every hour you'd hear it.

Finally our studio manager laughed and said of course you won't pay $85,000 for a M series BMW, you don't have $85,000 so BMW doesn't care what you think.  When you get the money, they'll start listening.




IMO

BC
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2011, 03:22:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, Gursky is been in the art circuit for ages.

If I pointed the composition, is only to stress that there is a clear intention and that the guy doesn't just take a picture. I mean the horizon is exactly in the middle and the composition obeis to a so precise pattern that it can not be unintentional. I do not need the ruler, because I have a fine arts studdy and that's something you end to see simply because they train you to see it. I draw the lines for the people who are less trained to see those things immediatly, and it was just to point that there is a systematic intention in his work and that this image is more than just "I shoot the river where I do my jogging".

You can say that this pic would be one your wife would delete. But the reality is that Gursky saw something there and didn't delete it. If people are giving him credit as one of the most important photographer today is because they think his vision and expression have value. A lot of value, included monetary.

But I have never criticized the fact that this image is not touching people. What I do yes criticize, is a certain form of arrogance in some posts because somebody doesn't like it. It remind me the reaction of some of the photographic comunity about Mario Testino, that he is where he is just because he has contacts.

Just my 2 cents thoughts.



Hi Fred -

I'm sorry I don't have an "art studdy" degree so I cannot understand this great masterpiece.  Poppycock.  (my uneducated great grandfather was fond of that one)

a.  I don't care if Gursky invented the camera.  This picture does not stand by itself in my opinion and like I said, I'd bet money we could take a random image off Flicker and post it openly on the internet against this one.. and the vast majority would choose the image off Flickr.

b.  And don't bother, if you need to "educate" us all on composition to be able to enjoy an otherwise boring image.. then what's the point?  I can take all the culinary classes I want and it's not going to make me like the taste of a durian any more than I do now.  Not that I don't appreciate the education, I do.  I just don't appreciate the condescension that went along with it. 

c.  Arrogance is defined many ways my friend.  Like putting up such a boring picture and expecting people to be taken to it just because the guys an important photographer.  Or.. trying to educate those who "don't get it" in hope they do.  Art is art.  Some will see it, some never will.  Sorry, but this particular image is boring and to me.. holds no artistic merit.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 03:32:17 PM by Steve Weldon » Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476



WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2011, 03:29:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve,

I will be the first to admit that "sour grapes" is a tired response.


But isn't it equally tired to get on a soapbox and yell through the bullhorn how you (rhetorical you) do not get it? How a five-year old, your mother-in-law, your dumb cousin could do the same in five minutes or less (why didn't they?). And this is not restricted to Gursky or photography. It works for most of the modern art. Take, for example, "White on White" painting by Kazimir Malevich in MoMA (NY) collection.

If you (again, rhetorical you) do not get it, what is the point of broadcasting your ignorance to the rest of the world as a badge of honor? As they say, it is better to keep your mouth shut and let the world think you are stupid, then open it and remove any doubt.

I may or may not get it either (or if I do, I still may not like it), but i get it that there are people who do. Why immediately hurl insults in their direction: "art world really has nothing to do with art", "crap", "rich guy showing off", to cite a few "thoughtful" responses.

When I was growing up, displaying your ignorance publicly was not considered a virtue. I guess a lot has changed since the Internet.

Since when has a mass taste been the supreme measure of artistic value? If that would be the case, the most valuable artistic creation of all times would be... "Star Wars" movie?

1.  But you were the first to use it when people were only asking questions.  You admit it, but you don't apologize for it.  Shame on you.

2.  You my friend hurled the very first insult of this thread with your "sour grapes" comment and you continue in this response with a rather lame theory that if someone doesn't "get it" or "see it my way" then they are indeed ignorant.  Nonsense.  Third grade logic at best.

3.  No, nothing has changed.  Some still do it but are even more ignorant in that they don't realize that which they've done.  There is nothing wrong with asking questions.  Until your insults started (and continued) all anyone was doing was asking questions, trying to understand.  At least Fred tried to explain.  I don't agree with him and I have the right to disagree strongly, but I can't fault his intentions.  Your intentions I fault.  You are being rude, condescending, and a bit more than full of yourself.

4.  What is the supreme measure of art?  You tell us.  And until you do, mass appeal will do nicely.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2011, 03:41:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Fred and Slobodan,

The point I was trying to make is any photograph that goes for huge money raises the bar for everyone, the artist, the serious professional and even the snapshot photographer.


For my entire adult life, I've heard photographers say "I could shoot that".    Maybe, maybe not, but as Slobodan says, why didn't they.

Finally our studio manager laughed and said of course you won't pay $85,000 for a M series BMW, you don't have $85,000 so BMW doesn't care what you think.  When you get the money, they'll start listening.

IMO

BC


a.  In what way exactly?  Explain to me how this image is going to raise the bar.  Give me one solid example using someone on this forum for instance.  And then give me an example in general.

b.  "I could have invented the drive up window" (actually I know now very rich family who did..) or "I could have shot this image" only means they think they could have done this.  Why is so much read into why they did or didn't?  Isn't the true arrogance really in trying to find something negative in someones rather innocuous comments?

c.  A great example of what I was talking about in 'b.' above.  An arrogant person would make such a comment.  A smart, inventive, or otherwise gifted person would listen to what the man has to say.. and then see if they could market a car that he would pay for.  Henry Ford comes to mind.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2011, 03:49:06 PM »
ReplyReply

... An image selling for 4.3 million should be able to stand on it's own merits ...

There is some subject matter or composition that would suddenly be "worth" $4.3 on "merit", but not this?

Huh?  
Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2011, 03:56:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Explain to me how this image is going to raise the bar.

... someone paid $4.3 million for a photograph - more than anyone, ever.  There's your raised bar.
Logged
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2011, 04:11:05 PM »
ReplyReply

This discussion gets a strange direction.

Everyone here is in his field an expert, has a profession in which he makes his money, where he knows all the in and outs. Not everyone here has this expertise in art or photography I guess.

So, if I (after I read some medical books and cut some steaks) come to the doctor and tell him how he is going to make that heart transplant I will earn a fatherly smile. Are you getting it?

In art, photography and let us add driving a car everyone thinks he is an expert. Even if he is not trained in that field. I think if I tell some posters here the in and outs of their daily business (or the business they are retired from) they think I'm nuts.

Best,
Johannes
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2011, 05:18:03 PM »
ReplyReply

... Until your insults started (and continued) all anyone was doing was asking questions, trying to understand...

Ok, lets see those "innocuous questions" that were posted before I used "sour grapes" (sour grapes = insult? Really!?):

- "it looked like a million other photos on Flickr"
- "it looks like what 99% of people would delete after taking it"
- "the art world really has nothing to do with art, and everything to do with being hyped"
- "crap"
- "art work done by high school students better the some of the so called art"
- "Any one can be an artist its convincing every one else that you are"
- "a sad reflection on the state of our present society"

If these are just "innocuous questions", and not statements, meant as a condescending criticism of both modern art and Gursky, then, my friend, we live on different planets.

I admire Fred's educational attempts. I do. But I also consider them futile. I surely do not expect people to become educated in modern arts by reading a few otherwise well intended and well written forum posts. Although, given the current era of instant experts, or, as I call them "PhDs in googling", I would not be surprised that someone does expect so.


Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
ixania2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2011, 08:19:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, it looks like what 99% of people would delete after taking it. It just goes to show that the art world really has nothing to do with art, and everything to do with being hyped by the right people.

sounds like the we know it all "my daughter could have painted that picasso."
why just didn't she?
and the we know it all free market bashing, of cause. i hear it mostly from the less successful...
Logged
Fritzer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2011, 08:35:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Understanding art reqires an education; art has always been elitist, always will be .
Gursky's work, however, is very accessible , even if one has only superficial knowledge of the history of photography and fine art .
It's not rocket science , but not for the 'intellectually lazy' either . Understanding art is a skill that needs to be developed .

I don't like this particular image, maybe because I lived near the location and always hated it there ...
I also find it utterly boring - which is not necessarily a bad thing.
In the context of Gursky's body of work, and contemporary German art photography, the image makes a lot of sense, though .

Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2011, 09:22:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it possible that the actual installation on plexi glass is a totally different experience from the jpeg available on the internet?
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 13, 2011, 10:09:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it possible that the actual installation on plexi glass is a totally different experience from the jpeg available on the internet?

That is why I chose not to comment on that specific image.  Because I have had experience with about 60-70 other Gursky images that I have seen in person. Quite a different experience than seeing them in a magazine or online.

Sort of like knowing how the jury should have voted, whether you agree with their vote or not, from a 5 sentance summary in the newspaper.  Kind of had to be there ....  Cheesy
Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2011, 02:40:03 AM »
ReplyReply


For my entire adult life, I've heard photographers say "I could shoot that".    Maybe, maybe not, but as Slobodan says, why didn't they.

BC


Why does it take 5 photographers to change a light bulb? Well, you need one to change the bulb and the other four to stand there and say "I could have done that, and better too".

I don't 'like' the image either - but that is my problem - and maybe 'liking' it is to miss the point entirely. The fact is that a certain group of people do like, and value, this Low Graphic Style or New Topographics stuff and are prepared to pay big bucks for prints. They are not the least interested in what others think, it's their money and their taste, that's as far as it goes. Gursky is one of the leading proponents of a particular genre of art photography that is considered valuable by some people. Good for them.

Don't get it? Fine, move on, nothing to see here...



Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2011, 03:24:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't 'like' the image either - but that is my problem - and maybe 'liking' it is to miss the point entirely. The fact is that a certain group of people do like, and value, this Low Graphic Style or New Topographics stuff and are prepared to pay big bucks for prints. They are not the least interested in what others think, it's their money and their taste, that's as far as it goes. Gursky is one of the leading proponents of a particular genre of art photography that is considered valuable by some people. Good for them.

Don't get it? Fine, move on, nothing to see here...

Wheres the 'Like' Button?.....

Oh thats right...

+1  Grin
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad