Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Andreas Gursky's Rhein II  (Read 89039 times)
Graystar
Guest
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2011, 06:51:00 AM »
ReplyReply

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/andreas-gursky-rhein-ii/5496716/lot/lot_details.aspx

From the "Lot Notes"...
"A breathtaking masterpiece of scale and wonderment, as well as the icon of Andreas Gursky's pioneering photographic oeuvre, Rhein II, enwraps the viewer in the sheer beauty of its scene."


From the "Overview"...
"On occasion, Christie's has a direct financial interest in lots consigned for sale which may include guaranteeing a minimum price or making an advance to the consignor that is secured solely by consigned property. This is such a lot."

Gotta say though...the parallelism of those lines is simply amazing!  And so straight!  Id KILL for straight lines like that!

 Tongue
Logged
Raul_82
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2012, 07:07:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Andreas Gursky have some really amazing photos, Rhein II isn't one of them.
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2012, 05:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Like Isaac, I get a bit weary of the "all modern art is rubbish" brigade. This is probably not a view that anyone would admit to holding, and I am sure they would have a good case and be able to quote modern artists they respect. It is more a question of tone, the exchange of coterie jokes about dog poop etc, and of an apparent eagerness to denounce something without having taken the trouble to understand it. I find my eyes rolling, entirely of their own accord.

It's not that I don't think there is rubbish around. It is more because I have the personal experience of thinking something to be rubbish and then discovering myself to have missed the point; and because the history of art over the last two hundred years is full of examples of work being denounced as rubbish by the great and the good and then discovered to be wonderful by the next generation of the great and the good. There is a case for a bit of caution and humility, initially at least. Then, when you have felt anything there is to feel and formed a view, by all means go for it and express it forcefully.

I also think that education has its uses. I say this not to reflect on anyone else's views on any artist or subject - I don't know anything about anyone else's education -  but rather as a reflection of my own experience. The artists I like I have liked at first glance, but then I have found that studying them greatly enhances my pleasure. This may have nothing to do with universities - my own experience has been that academic fine art courses are a mixed blessing.

I also think there are conversations you can't have without knowing something about the history of the ideas that are in play and that (self-)education (the best kind) is the only way to get that knowledge. People who don't have it sometimes get resentful and lash out. Even on Lula, you sometimes meet the spiritual heirs of Benjamin Jowett, about whom an admirer wrote "I am the master of Balliol College/What I don't know, isn't knowledge".

I would need to see the Gursky on the wall in order to discover whether I like it or not. Minimalist works generally don't come across on a small screen. Late Rothko would be my case in point. I used to think them rubbish, until I spent an hour in a room full of them. I am sure there will be someone here who does think them rubbish - no doubt after careful consideration  Wink
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6199



WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2012, 08:17:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree, Ken. I'll go further: I think education is a key that unlocks all sorts of experiences in the art world you'd otherwise pass by. Besides that, art history is fascinating stuff.

I think Raul summed it up. Certainly Gursky has done some fine work, though Rhein II is a long way from fine work. But it seems to me that the bottom line is there's a huge disconnect between art and the art market. I've already explained why, so I won't go back over it.

Logged

Fips
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 11, 2012, 02:26:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I also think that education has its uses. I say this not to reflect on anyone else's views on any artist or subject - I don't know anything about anyone else's education -  but rather as a reflection of my own experience. The artists I like I have liked at first glance, but then I have found that studying them greatly enhances my pleasure. This may have nothing to do with universities - my own experience has been that academic fine art courses are a mixed blessing.

Absolutely. But I get even more pleasure out of art which I initially didn't like or 'get'. Case in point are Bernd and Hilla Becher for me. I guess their work is something that is almost impossible to 'get' without learning about their motivation and intentions.

Regarding Gursky, I wouldn't describe him as minimalistic, although 'Rhein II' or the Bangkok series certainly are. But for me his best images, like 'Sao Paolo Se' for example, are rather gigantic, photographic Where's Waldos. Absolutely stunning too see in person.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1913


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 11, 2012, 03:50:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I would need to see the Gursky on the wall in order to discover whether I like it or not. Minimalist works generally don't come across on a small screen.
Nice to finally see some reason in this thread.

I suspect most of the Gursky detractors in this thread have never actually seen a real Gursky print.

A significant part of the impact of his work is the shear size of the works and the astonishing amount of detail they contain even at very close viewing distances. Plus the quality of the print making is exemplary.
When you stand in front of one, it really is an exceptional experience. Once you've done that you'll understand why his work can command such extreme prices.
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 11, 2012, 04:30:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Regarding Gursky, I wouldn't describe him as minimalistic, although 'Rhein II' or the Bangkok series certainly are. But for me his best images, like 'Sao Paolo Se' for example, are rather gigantic, photographic Where's Waldos. Absolutely stunning too see in person.

You are absolutely right of course - I really only meant the example at the head of the thread, and registered it as untypical. "Photographic Where's Waldos" is nice - I don't promise not to plagiarize it Wink
Logged

John Gellings
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #47 on: November 29, 2012, 07:05:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Exactly!

And if I had taken it, and blown it up to humongous size and mounted it to acrylic or whatever, I seriously doubt whether anybody would have paid over 4 million for it.

Eric

If you did it prior to him, you may have had a chance. 
Logged
petermfiore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 511



WWW
« Reply #48 on: December 09, 2012, 04:33:15 PM »
ReplyReply

If you did it prior to him, you may have had a chance. 



In our world today it's who is FIRST and the rest consigned to the dust bin.
Both true and sad.

Peter
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7897



WWW
« Reply #49 on: December 09, 2012, 05:45:16 PM »
ReplyReply

If you did it prior to him, you may have had a chance. 
But only if I had his agents and/or contacts in the "Art" world.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

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

Posts: 511



WWW
« Reply #50 on: December 09, 2012, 05:57:55 PM »
ReplyReply

But only if I had his agents and/or contacts in the "Art" world.


Also very true.

Peter
Logged

tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2012, 11:20:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Although the images look very nice.  I hope they enjoy them for the time they have them.  At my calculations of 4.3 million dollars for a print.  At the rate they fade it looks like they are leasing them for 300,000 dollars a year.  Great investment.  Its like buying fine furniture with termites in them.  

Chromagenic Prints really.  With pigment printing since 1991 and they still make prints with very fade-able dyes.  I Hope they have fun getting sued.  

Read the article Why C prints fade.  Tim Wolcott
Logged
Fips
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 195



WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2013, 11:38:33 AM »
ReplyReply

The oldest C-print of Gursky which I have seen is Montparnasse from 1993 and I it still looks great. Most of his newer work is printed with pigment ink.
Logged
John Gellings
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #53 on: January 09, 2013, 07:44:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Although the images look very nice.  I hope they enjoy them for the time they have them.  At my calculations of 4.3 million dollars for a print.  At the rate they fade it looks like they are leasing them for 300,000 dollars a year.  Great investment.  Its like buying fine furniture with termites in them.  

Chromagenic Prints really.  With pigment printing since 1991 and they still make prints with very fade-able dyes.  I Hope they have fun getting sued.  

Read the article Why C prints fade.  Tim Wolcott

Surely you've been to the museum and have seen early color photos no?
Logged
tim wolcott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 10, 2013, 11:15:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Sure I have but these are not early photos.  These are from recent mid 1990's at the latest.Really instills faith that the rest of his work has any merits or value.  Its like selling fine furniture with termites in it.  

By the way early color photography from the late 1800's and early 1900's are very nice to this day.  And that photography was made with pigments.  The only reason his prints have this over inflated value is thru manipulation by powerful european gallery owners.  "Not that there is anything wrong with that."

Remember value is over time can only be achieved by longevity.  

So ask yourself this question.  Do you disclose to the buyer/client that the artwork they are about to purchase that it fades 10% every 2-12 years.  Would they BUY IT.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 12:02:35 PM by tim wolcott » Logged
Walt Roycraft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 15, 2013, 04:40:14 PM »
ReplyReply

'Why, I ask, is my unmade bed just an unmade bed and hers is art? "Because you didn't say that yours was art and you didn't feel that it was. I saw it as art and felt that it was. I said that it was and showed that it was. I have transferred what I feel on to someone else looking at it. That's the alchemy. That's the magic. I was the person who had to have the conviction in the first place.'

Where is this quote from, may I ask?
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2769


« Reply #56 on: January 15, 2013, 07:15:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote the first sentence and Google finds - The Scotsman, Friday 11 July 2008

As for originality, The Unmade Bed Imogen Cunningham, 1957.
Logged
Walt Roycraft
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310



WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 16, 2013, 10:23:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I always hate it when people ask a question without googleing it first!
Stupid me.
Thanks for the easy answer.
Logged

RedwoodGuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417


« Reply #58 on: February 06, 2013, 11:33:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Like Isaac, I get a bit weary of the "all modern art is rubbish" brigade. This is probably not a view that anyone would admit to holding, and I am sure they would have a good case and be able to quote modern artists they respect. It is more a question of tone, the exchange of coterie jokes about dog poop etc, and of an apparent eagerness to denounce something without having taken the trouble to understand it. I find my eyes rolling, entirely of their own accord.

It's not that I don't think there is rubbish around. It is more because I have the personal experience of thinking something to be rubbish and then discovering myself to have missed the point; and because the history of art over the last two hundred years is full of examples of work being denounced as rubbish by the great and the good and then discovered to be wonderful by the next generation of the great and the good. There is a case for a bit of caution and humility, initially at least. Then, when you have felt anything there is to feel and formed a view, by all means go for it and express it forcefully.

I also think that education has its uses. I say this not to reflect on anyone else's views on any artist or subject - I don't know anything about anyone else's education -  but rather as a reflection of my own experience. The artists I like I have liked at first glance, but then I have found that studying them greatly enhances my pleasure. This may have nothing to do with universities - my own experience has been that academic fine art courses are a mixed blessing.

I also think there are conversations you can't have without knowing something about the history of the ideas that are in play and that (self-)education (the best kind) is the only way to get that knowledge. People who don't have it sometimes get resentful and lash out. Even on Lula, you sometimes meet the spiritual heirs of Benjamin Jowett, about whom an admirer wrote "I am the master of Balliol College/What I don't know, isn't knowledge".

I would need to see the Gursky on the wall in order to discover whether I like it or not. Minimalist works generally don't come across on a small screen. Late Rothko would be my case in point. I used to think them rubbish, until I spent an hour in a room full of them. I am sure there will be someone here who does think them rubbish - no doubt after careful consideration  Wink
One of the most thoughtful responses I've seen to the many Rhein II internet discussion I have followed. Well reasoned, well written and concise!
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8877


« Reply #59 on: February 09, 2013, 11:07:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Aren't there a few points you guys seem to be ignoring?

(1) The print is huge. It's mounted on glass approximately 6ft 9ins high and 11ft 8ins wide.

(2) The print is a genuine artistic creation according to my interpretation of Rob C's standards. That is, the scene (as a whole) doesn't exist in reality. It was digitally manipulated. Not only were dog walkers and cyclists removed, (there was probably a constant stream of them) but a factory building was also cloned out.

(3) The viewer is not invited to consider a specific place along the river but rather an almost 'platonic' ideal of the body of water as it navigates the landscape.

(4) Many of the people who can afford such expensive works of art as this, have probably spent most of their time making money, living almost exclusively in very artificial environments in congested, bustling cities.

They are probably so out of touch with the natural environment, if you were to confront them with a large image of a single blade of grass, they would probably swoon in ecstasy.  Grin
« Last Edit: February 10, 2013, 06:40:33 AM by Ray » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad