Record for any photo sold at auction set in NYC

[jing q]

gursky's work is wonderful. I don't think this is his best image but he's definitely one of the important photo artists.

[D!RK]

Ken Rockwell    Gursky has used 5x7 large format film most of the time. He partly transitioned to MFD with a Hasselblad for some of his work. In the ARTE video you see him shooting with a Linhof 4x5 as well still he prepares 5x7 holders for the shot. 5x7 is a beautiful format. Sadly film for it is slowing going away.
One thing that I am hearing in this forum is that Gursky can sell these images because he is so famous. The truth is that he is famous because he took these images. The comparison with Flickr images is interesting as well. I bet you would actually have a hard time to find an image on Flickr, print it in that scale, and still find it moving. The thing is that most Flickr images are interesting but expected. People shoot sunsets, canyons, people on the street. 90% of the images there are variations of images that have already been taken. Many, maybe most people would prefer a large print of the Antelope Canyon. The thing is that it has been done a thousand times and any new image of it is most likely not changing a viewers perception of photography. When the Impressionism painters started to make their way into the art world many people thought that it was trash. They were used to perfectly rendered oil paintings. Galleries first rejected the work. Mainstream thought that a child could have painted these kind of paintings. One big criteria for Art is if it opens new territories that nobody has explored before. Gursky has done that big time and if you look around you can see his influence in photography work that followed him. The only way to really get an idea about this work is to go to an exhibition and to do a guided tour. It may not move you but it influenced many of today's photographers.

[BernardLanguillier]

I have to admit, with a bit of shame, that I did not know him or his work until this photograph broke this record.

Good for him!

Globally, this is very good for photography and... I tend to agree that much larger file sizes are important.

Perhaps he shot his image with this device?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11667-12089

Cheers,
Bernard

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Ken Rockwell    Gursky has used 5x7 large format film most of the time. He partly transitioned to MFD with a Hasselblad for some of his work. In the ARTE video you see him shooting with a Linhof 4x5 as well still he prepares 5x7 holders for the shot. 5x7 is a beautiful format. Sadly film for it is slowing going away.

Thank you Dirk for sharing the ARTE video. I saw all four parts - very enlightening.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ken Rockwell says he used a Linholf 617: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm. If so, I wonder how he got such a big print from it.

Not correct. Ken specifically said "Linhof large-format camera... [which] allowed tilting the film and lens", which excludes 617 by definition. What might have confused you is his system of hyperlinking to his previous articles, and the link for the word "Linhof" led to Ken's 2005 test of 617.

[BernardLanguillier]

I don't think that the capture medium is really that impressive. It is possible to do much higher resolutions with stitching nowadays.

In my view, what is interesting here is mostly:
- The image itself,
- The printing and mounting technique,
- The fact that a photograph can be considered as a suitable speculation medium to those extremes levels.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fredjeang]

I don't think that the capture medium is really that impressive. It is possible to do much higher resolutions with stitching nowadays.

In my view, what is interesting here is mostly:
- The image itself,
- The printing and mounting technique,
- The fact that a photograph can be considered as a suitable speculation medium to those extremes levels.

Cheers,
Bernard

I have not explored the current switching techniques and softwares so far, but this is indeed to take seriously into consideration because I suspect that the post-prod in that aspect has done significant progress.

[KevinA]

I'm all in favour of any photograph (I would prefer it to be one of mine) selling for huge sums, that can't be bad for any of us can it?

Kevin.

[amsp]

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

+1.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Not correct. Ken specifically said "Linhof large-format camera... [which] allowed tilting the film and lens", which excludes 617 by definition. What might have confused you is his system of hyperlinking to his previous articles, and the link for the word "Linhof" led to Ken's 2005 test of 617.

You are absolutely right.

[niteart]

Do all those people asking 'If you think you can do it why didn't you' really think that we did not take pictures like this? Who are you kidding?
Kuddos to Gursky for his ability to drive prices this high. In my opinion it has little to do with his photography, but has everything to do with his personality and mastery of art of selling. I bet he would do great even if he would do pottery or something instead of photography

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Glad to hear we have such a world-class artist among us!

[fredjeang]

Glad to hear we have such a world-class artist among us!

Yeah, it's funny...

this: we all could do it, I do that every day within I'm taking my shower, my 4 years old sister in law or 99,999 years old gran' ma would do better.

It reminds me the Pirelli calendar shooted by Lagarfeld reactions.


Today I was looking for a Leica glass "info" (the macro 90mm f4) that I finally bought anyway and it's funny internet: "this is crap because aperture is slow", "my standards can't accept an F4 lens", "this is just about average for me"...oh yeah, and the winner of all: "sharpness is just so so..." . Sharpness!!
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/90mm-f4-macro.htm


Everybody is more talented than Lagarfeld, Testino or Gursky, we just don't have their relations or businessmen habilities, but if we just had them...we would  ___


And of course, without 50MP and Noctilux, I won't even shoot. I don't want to pollute my ___ with an f4 lens. Those are for the amateurs, not for the real shooters.

Interesting morning lecture indeed.  

[cng]

Everybody is more talented than Lagarfeld, Testino or Gursky, we just don't have their relations or businessmen habilities, but if we just had them...we would  ___

And ... Bourdin "only" cropped all the limbs off his models, Avedon "only" shot on white, Sugimoto "only" shoots blurred architecture and hazy seascapes, Meisel "only" has blank cheque budgets, Bill Viola "only" shoots esoteric videos, Malevich "only" painted a black square, Morandi "only" painted bottles, etc etc etc. 

It's all too easy if you selectively criticise, as well as ignore the consistency and dedication required to create a lifetime's body of work.

This topic has really jumped the shark.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I've indicated before that I personally don't get moved by Gursky's work. But I'll readily admit that I don't believe I could take (or create) a picture that would provoke as many comments on LuLa as this one of his has.   

I admit: he has something (besides money) that I don't have.

Eric

[Rob C]

I've indicated before that I personally don't get moved by Gursky's work. But I'll readily admit that I don't believe I could take (or create) a picture that would provoke as many comments on LuLa as this one of his has.   

I admit: he has something (besides money) that I don't have.

Eric

Yes, Eric: I suspect you'd find balls of brass and a scrap metal business that sells them.

I have no fight with artists making pots of money; the problem is accepting some as artists. That some otherwise proven artists have also made delightfully funny images to tease their public doesn't diminish their stature; but they have this other body of work too...

Not much to do with grapes of the sour variety, much to do with not wanting to override my own judgement. There is no automatic link between size and artistic worth, just with production cost, impact on other people and the implication that if it's bigger it must be better and thus more worthy of high prices. There is, however, a real, visible link between size of a 'work' and whether it works at that magnification. Some images look better small, others need a larger display; some don't work regardless of scale. I have many of the latter so I speak with authority.

Rob C

[tho_mas]

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

That really says it all.

I've seen it before, but it's well worth reading several times over. Thanks for posting it.

Eric

[TH_Alpa]

First time I read it, but it's worth the time to do so.

Thierry

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html