Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Record for any photo sold at auction set in NYC  (Read 17226 times)
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 673


« on: November 11, 2011, 01:12:10 PM »
ReplyReply

They say a picture is worth a a thousand words, this picture is worth $4.3 million words.
I am missing something abut this picture?


http://news.yahoo.com/record-photo-sold-auction-set-nyc-182745446.html
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2011, 01:14:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Nope, if you thought that it looked like a million other photos on Flickr that's because it does.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 790


« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2011, 02:50:41 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.
Logged
HarperPhotos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1252



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2011, 03:01:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello,

Graham oh so true. I have the opportunity a few years back to travel around New Zealand photographing the work of Ralph Hotere. I visited art galleries and private collections and came to the conclusion that the majority of the work in them was crap and I am not putting Hotere's work in that category at all. I have seen art work done by high school students better the some of the so called art I have seen.

http://www.johnleechgallery.co.nz/artists/ralphhotere.asp

There is a saying “Any one can be an artist its convincing every one else that you are”

That’s my view.

Simon
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 03:18:47 PM by HarperPhotos » Logged

Simon Harper
Harper Photographics Ltd
http://www.harperphoto.com
http://www.facebook.com/harper.photographics

Auckland, New Zealand
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2011, 03:34:15 PM »
ReplyReply

What is art? That is a difficult question. Especially with contemporary art. You should not blame the artist for the strange art business. Who is selling this piece? Who bought it? Perhaps some speculation is going on in the background. It wouldn't be the first time. Perhaps some rich guy wants to show of with a Gursky in his living room and that amount of money is only peanuts for him.

If I remember it right Anselm Kiefer recently said it is sick that one of his paintings was sold for a huge amount of money.

Marcel Duchamp would smile about that. He once asked who is the better artist, the one who sells his paintings for more money?

You don't have to like that image, you don't have to be touched by it. But Gursky shows his images in museums and sells them very well and most of us here don't. And: He decides what he photographs. You can't buy him, you have to buy what he offers. Whether in 500 years someone understands why people payed huge amounts of money in our time fort photographs is a question we can't answer today.

I'm not touched by his images. Ansel Adams landscapes don't touch me either. But I think they are both artists and their images are art. And the value is, what someone is willing to pay for it. Don't mix up things. Bashing of modern art is too easy.

In my opinion art is a reflection about the society you are living in.

Just some thoughts.

Best,
Johannes
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 03:37:26 PM by jsch » Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8219



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2011, 04:28:54 PM »
ReplyReply

In my opinion art is a reflection about the society you are living in.
And that is a sad reflection on the state of our present society (and Gursky's photographs).

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2011, 04:36:45 PM »
ReplyReply

And that is a sad reflection on the state of our present society (and Gursky's photographs).

Eric

What is the problem with that river photograph? Why is that a sad reflection of our present society? What do you see in that image?

Perhaps it is art because you start to think.

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

Posts: 6196


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2011, 04:43:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Sour grapes, anyone?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2011, 05:47:53 PM »
ReplyReply

No opinion on that image.

I can say that I saw the Gursky show at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, perhaps 5-7 years ago?  Absolutely stunning work, I was totally blown away by it!

The huge exhibition catalog, with 8x12 in prints of the images looked like bad 12K JPEGs compared to the actual images.

The same was true of the Thomas Struth show, as well as the Jeff Wall show.  I was particularly predisposed to dislike Wall's work, because of all the post-modern "blah de blah"hype surrounding it.  I have to say - I was 100% wrong!

Now there was an Ansel Adams show at the Art Institute at the same time as the Wall show.  Left there with no emotion, no feeling, just really bored to death by the Adams work.

And Duchamp .... I spent a full week at the Philadelphia Museum of Art , every night for hours, looking at his work. Then years reading everything I could get my hands on during the 1990's.  Finally started to really grasp the many complex aspects of his career - including Étant donnés...  

After all that, I have to conclude that the title of one book about him - "Artist of the Century" - is dead on accurate.  Incredible vision, predated the complex directions of later art by almost 50-75 years ...

So ... Easy to say anything about "art in general." But when it comes to specific artists, there are many who have done incredible work that I admire, and who have been a great inspiration and who have added value to my life.  I don't care too much about the "art world" beyond that.

Cheers!
Michael
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2011, 02:34:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Take a look at that woman: http://www.lisesarfati.com/index.shtml

Her pictures also could look like banal flickr uploads, but they aren't really.

You look at a pic out of a context and because it looks banal, the "I could do it" or my "sister in law could do it", doesn't give it any value.
It is not, or never the pic itself.

Everybody can do a black dot on a white canvas, therefore it should not be considered as art. But this is not, and never has been what art is about.
In fact it depends on who is doing it, why (the intention), how and the relevance in the context it appears.

Lise Sarfati is not one more flickr photographer because behind her imagery, there is a severe reflection on social codes, there is an conscient intention and repetitive investigation
on the same content. Those are not pictures without purpose, but carefully planed working path.

Then, I do not understand why it is so shocking that an image can be bought at an high price, wether it is a speculative intention or a real emotional response from a wealphy buyer, and it looks
more normal that people are actually buying Diamonded Leicas or Ferraris Hasselblads collectors.

Those people, like Gursky, rarely take pictures for taking pictures.

By the way, a quick meditation if I may: I've noticed that the more talented photographers I ever met, never take their cameras without a clear intention. They generally do not shot out of their work and generally have a precise idea about in what their work consist of.
Completly the opposite of the "I shootitall" nervous culture we are living in.

The definition of art, and the value of art can not be limited to what appears to one "correct" or "real art", like it happens in religion. There is no "real" art as such. And there is no logical monetary value, therefore it can be speculative, and it does very often.

So, if you you take that Gursky image, take a ruler, you'll see that the composition obeys to a fractal pattern and that the distribution of the h lines matches excatly without any centimeter error, to a mathematical and geometrical proportional scale. This is so precise that it can not be without purpose. Bingo.

It's not, I take my camera, wait for the sunrise to get a decent light and may have a printable pic on my Epson_. This is something else...  
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 03:16:45 AM by fredjeang » Logged
cng
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2011, 04:46:42 AM »
ReplyReply

+1 everything Fred said.  Plus ...

I don't understand the controversy surrounding the sale of this image. Seems like a lot of sour grapes to me.

It is especially ironic considering that not many have actually seen a Gursky print in real-life and this is a site focused on landscape shooters who worship THE PRINT as the ultimate expression of the photographer's art.

I may not like all contemporary photographic art but I have been fortunate enough to view exhibitions by Gursky, Wall, Crewdson, Kawauchi, Demand, Sugimoto etc. Even if you don't like the work, your appreciation of it will change once you view the full-sized prints in real-life.  Everything looks banal when viewed on the web — this is the curse of flickr and the iPhone generation.

Also, I think the bulk of the jealousy is misguided:  This Gursky print was sold on the secondary market, so Gursky sees zero of the sale proceeds. Does that make everyone feel better?  Why do photographers always rag on other photographers?  We are our own worst enemy.
Logged
ced
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2011, 04:48:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I must say the the small image we see probably doesn't do justice to what I believe to be a poster size original which is the one that was sold.
I am not excited too much about the image itself but most of us would not see these patterns as he has cleverly composed in the shot, the strip of green on the other side of the river looks as if it were stripped out of the frontside and displaced to the top. Then the proportions of sky, water and grass are flawless as remarked by fredjeang.
This pathway on the Rhine River is where Gursky does his jogging and he must have seen and thought about this over quite a long period so nothing by hasard.
Good for his pocket and reputation...
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2011, 07:21:21 AM »
ReplyReply

So, if you you take that Gursky image, take a ruler, you'll see that the composition obeys to a fractal pattern and that the distribution of the h lines matches excatly without any centimeter error, to a mathematical and geometrical proportional scale. This is so precise that it can not be without purpose. Bingo.

It's not, I take my camera, wait for the sunrise to get a decent light and may have a printable pic on my Epson_. This is something else...  

+1. Agree 100%.

On a lighter note, I don't see how that fractal pattern has anything to do with the subject Gursky was shooting; but I wish we had these exhibitions in India. Standing in front of the real thing might really be like standing in front of the real thing.
Logged

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

Posts: 8219



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2011, 08:28:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I have stood in front of some of Gursky's prints. They were huge and, like the one in this thread, "minimalistic." But I found nothing exciting about any of the ones I saw, and I have no interest in putting one of them up on one of my wall at home.

Would I accept one as a gift? You betcha! And I'd put it up for auction instantly.

I've also seen an exhibit of Wall's, which I went to prepared to hate (being the grumpy old man that I am). But I found them quite stunning and I found myself pulled into each image and spending a lot of time exploring each.

Beauty --- as well as "Art" --- is in the eye of the beholder. I can't really explain why Wall works for me but Gursky doesn't. That's just my hangup.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6196


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2011, 09:23:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Well said, Fred!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2011, 10:17:56 AM »
ReplyReply

It's also been extensively photoshopped to remove the buildings in the background, there are some on this forum who would refused to even call it a photograph because of that. I like the fact that this with this sale, $4 mill says 'who cares what the purists and grumpy old men think!'
Logged

bcooter
Guest
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2011, 03:00:32 PM »
ReplyReply

The thing I love out a still photograph like this Gursky image is the viewer can interpret their own vision of the work.

Unlike films where most of the message is roadmapped a still image for the sake of only the image leaves so much to the imagination.

Is it worth 4 million? yep (That's Texan for yes), because somebody paid that.

Does it bother me he got 4 million?   Nope, ... I wish he'd recieved 44 million because it only raises the bar of what most of us can ask for our work.

Personally I think it's a beautiful photograph and will spawn a lot of imitators.

IMO

BC
Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 351


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2011, 03:44:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Suggest looking at a variety of his other images: http://www.matthewmarks.com/artists/andreas-gursky/selected-works/#  I did not really understand what he was about until I looked at this photo in context. That said, I like a number of his other images better than this one.
Logged

mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2011, 04:50:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I have seen most of those linked images in exhibition.  It is quite an experience to stand in front of them, comprarable to standing in front of any other work on art.

That is, you have never "really" seen a Monet, etc. until you have seen the actual painting.  I think the same is true with Gursky, given that this image is actually 11 feet x 7 feet in size - call it 3.3 x 2 meters. This image just totally blew me away when I saw it. The detail goes down to a level to staisfy someone looking at it with a loupe.

99 Cent
1999
C-Print mounted to plexiglass in artist's frame
81 1/2 x 132 5/8 inches; 207 x 336.5 cm



http://www.matthewmarks.com/artists/andreas-gursky/selected-works/#/images/8/

Logged
richardhagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2011, 05:21:47 PM »
ReplyReply

i'm a big fan of AG but for the life of me i am try to figure out what this means:

"So, if you you take that Gursky image, take a ruler, you'll see that the composition obeys to a fractal pattern and that the distribution of the h lines matches excatly without any centimeter error, to a mathematical and geometrical proportional scale. This is so precise that it can not be without purpose."

What do fractals have to do with it?!

rh
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 05:46:29 PM by richardhagen » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad