Author Topic: The most expensive photos ever. (Read 1049 times)

count_zero · « **on:** November 18, 2011, 11:54:50 AM »

http://www.businessinsider.com/andreas-gursky-photo-record-most-expensive-2011-11?op=1

Moral of the story. People with money like to waste money on art. The trick is somehow getting your photo into a Christie's Auction house.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #1 on:** November 18, 2011, 02:31:49 PM »

these photos are very good , but they are not worth 3 to 4 million dollars

that is simply a load of hooey promoted by the galleries and critics who feed ,like parasitic organisms of the river of money from an essentially clueless 1% who believe they can purchase culture and taste as easily as buying a wheel of brie .

if the emperor isnt naked , he certainly is wearing mere wisps of clothing and it shows, is it drafty in here?!?

and i say that as someone who thinks rhine II is an absolutely stunning piece of photographic art

Em5 Pete · « **Reply #2 on:** November 18, 2011, 03:04:03 PM »

I followed this on Rff, many say this is ART....

I say, than any 7' x 5' panorama is ART... because of the detail. Not because of the content.
Of which most of the stuff is mundane.

I am not sorry for my view..... There are a lot people who buy social status, instead of earning it the old fashioned way.

voyager · « **Reply #3 on:** November 18, 2011, 04:43:51 PM »

One of them doesn't even make sense.

corgifan · « **Reply #4 on:** November 18, 2011, 07:28:58 PM »

Worth mentioning here, in light of some discussions we've had about the validity of post processing, is that Gursky edited the image good bit in Photo Shop.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57323385/gursky-photo-sets-$4.3m-auction-record/

I got a kick out of this comment by the Christie's guy ""At its most basic, it is an astounding picture of nature, which has been scaled and detailed to take the viewer right into the scene in the way that artists have strived to do throughout history," he said, adding that not only is Gursky one of the most important artists of today, he's responsible for putting photography in its predominant place in the art world."

Apparently Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and the rest were just snap shooters that no one took seriously.

Doug

lisandra · « **Reply #5 on:** November 18, 2011, 09:52:22 PM »

Apparently, I dont have an artistic eye. what part of that image is worth more than 30$?

asterinex · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2011, 10:46:55 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on November 18, 2011, 09:52:22 PM

Apparently, I dont have an artistic eye. what part of that image is worth more than 30$?

Defz

Quote from: lisandra on November 18, 2011, 09:52:22 PM

Apparently, I dont have an artistic eye. what part of that image is worth more than 30$?

Definitely the 'Rhine River' picture

voyager · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2011, 08:49:31 PM »

And nobody even buys my pictures...

corgifan · « **Reply #8 on:** November 20, 2011, 11:15:52 PM »

Quote from: voyager on November 20, 2011, 08:49:31 PM

And nobody even buys my pictures...

You're not pretentious enough.

Doug

lisandra · « **Reply #9 on:** November 21, 2011, 01:10:56 AM »

Quote from: corgifan on November 20, 2011, 11:15:52 PM

Quote from: voyager on November 20, 2011, 08:49:31 PM
And nobody even buys my pictures...

You're not pretentious enough.

Doug

I seriously think that must be it...Voyager just go out and shoot the most mundane of things and print it 7 feet wide. be sure to wear a top hat while youre at it and speak with an accent (any accent). Then go to a gallery and demand your "timeless capture" to be sold for a price no less than what a picasso masterpiece deserves...thatll do it.

asterinex · « **Reply #10 on:** November 21, 2011, 01:15:14 AM »

Isn't it also a fact that there are now so many photographers. I mean everyone now a day is a photographer.
I see so many great pictures on Flickr. I don't have time to watch maybe 1% of them.
Is it still possible to outperform the mass ?

lisandra · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2011, 01:29:05 AM »

Quote from: asterinex on November 21, 2011, 01:15:14 AM

Isn't it also a fact that there are now so many photographers. I mean everyone now a day is a photographer.
I see so many great pictures on Flickr. I don't have time to watch maybe 1% of them.
Is it still possible to outperform the mass ?

There are a lot of very good photos out there, there are even quite a few exceptional, but for every exceptional photo there are 100 lifeless, boring, just plain bad photos taken. I think its an advantage, people recognize when you do something exceptional because its amongst a sea of crap. Before when there where only a handful of photographers and even fewer ways to be known, a person with the crapiest of photos just had to know the right person. And since cameras were not as accessible, people accepted them as pieces of art. I love ansel adams, I do, but i dont think every single photo he took is an historic masterpiece.

corgifan · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2011, 09:12:40 PM »

It's possible to stand out from the masses if you're really good at your photography AND really good a promoting yourself. I was married to an artist for a while and self-promotion comes hard for most artists. The flamboyant ones, the natural characters and BSers who believe their own stories, definitely have and edge over those who are merely talented.

Lisandra, (working from memory here) Adams took about 50k images in his career and I think the number that were printed in any commercial / fine art way was about 10%, and a much smaller number became famous. In fact, there is a quote from Adams about his images "Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."

Voyager's images look good and best of all show steady improvement; I think, now he just needs to wear a beret, smoke unfiltered Turkish cigarettes, and talk about the pain, the pain, of his work.

Doug

count_zero · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2011, 10:50:15 PM »

Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson and other defined the techniques we use today. I'm not sure what technique is unique in blowing up a landscape to wall size. I've seen billboards advertising fly fishing spots that are more interesting. I think what makes this one unique is that his other works, which made him famous in the first place are filled with detail, yet this one is minimal. So it is unique because it's minimal for Gursky. Plus, this is his largest print so far, which makes it even more rare. If he dies today, it will be worth $40,000,000.

http://www.expertphotography.com/the-worlds-most-expensive-photo-what-makes-it-so-great

The most expensive photos ever.