http://www.theatlanticwire.com/enter...o-world/44772/
I feel sick ...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/enter...o-world/44772/
I feel sick ...
Yep, there are still people with more money than sense out there.
Really...probably I am not getting the essence of the photo, can somebody tell why it is valued so much...
As we look at it on our screen. we've got to try and think how the original looks. I note that it's soemthing like 80 x 140 inches. So, it's big. It's very big.
I'm sure it does make an impact. And the more I've looked at it, the more I like how it is built/composed/arranged (call it what you will). I would call it a pleasing image. But, $4.3 million worth of pleasure ........ not so sure!
I think I'll just stick with my passions for such as Adams' Silverton and Tenaya Creek, Dogwood, Rain
the link won't open for me so I'll just have to wonder what it is that someone with a well filled piggy bank is splashing their cash around on Is it really up to the very high standards set by the old masters??
Donald -what about this one?
http://www.anseladams.com/Oak_Tree_S..._p/1502010.htm
It has been probably my favourite Adams image since I first saw it many years ago
Just google Rhein II and you'll get lots of links to various sites about it.
I suppose we could argue that Gursky and Adams were trying to do different things in two very different ways and for as many of us who love the work of Adams, there will be as many don't 'get it' (or 'get it' less) and much prefer the work of Gursky.
But that's the fun of it all.
$4.3 million for that? Really?? At the risk of getting myself into trouble ... What Were They Thinking???
I absolutely respect the right of everyone to have their own artistic favourites, but if I had $4.3 million burning a hole in my pocket I wouldn't be spending it on work like that
looks through old photo's
Looks familiar
I do not know why this photo is worth so much, but then I don't understand the appeal and acclaim of much recent art, such as the comparable colour field works of Mark Rothko. However, one of the comments below the article hints that the buyer might not be quite as daft as it seems - the writer states that Andreas Gursky is a celebrated artist with works in top museums and collections, so the German buyer could be investing his Euros before the currency totally crashes. According to Wkipedia, this artist has another photo in the top ten - 99 Cent II Diptychon (2001), $3,346,456, February 2007, Sotheby's London auction. So in the present economic circumstances, the buyer's risk might prove to be one well taken.
Philip
Nice colour and composition artistically but really? I think we all have images that (in our minds) would rival this one, but what do i know? Not that much, apparently...
$4.3! more money than sense.....wonder if i can find who bought it, if i ferret through lightroom im sure i can find a few snaps that i could let them have for the reasonable sum of 2 mil....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vo...Fire_photo.jpg
I knew I saw it before
Place in anonomously in a competition and see how well it does.
I agree with statements about the piece of art should be able to stand on it's own merits, and not based on the fame/status of the artist.
However, I'm sure we've all seen many pics by famous people that are of a standard different to that to which we are used to (crap), but are highly revered cos of the artist.
Make me think of the anti vax movement supported by certain famous porn stars (now there's a person with a great brain applied to a significant world issue - hahahahahahaha!). Fame brings it's own rewards separate to the actual merits.
I presume the guy has done a great deal of self promotion (or been lucky enough to have some done on his behalf). So lesson to be learned, if we can all blow our own trumpet as well as he has done, perhaps we can do as well as he has done out of a minimalist picture.
Going to take a picture of a white wall now, see how much that will make. If you blow it up to 8' high and 10' long, you can place it on a wall instead of paint and have it worth a fortune.
Graham
It is, as Philip suggest in Post #9 above, probably as much if not more to do with potential investment value as any appreciation of art.
My other hobby is wine (why am I enthralled by such expensive interests when I clearly can't afford them?). The wine that an enthusiastic amateur like me would die for in order to taste will never reach my lips. It's all locked up in high security cellars and will never be enjoyed in the way it was meant to be - opened and drunk. It's just a trading commodity, albeit one that in the last number of years has far outstripped stocks and shares (and art) by a mile. But even there, there is concern that the bubble is bursting.
The purchase pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with the world, the economy is shot to s**t, people are dying of starvation yet someone can go spend that sort of money on a photo
Its so very very wrong
Sorry, not much makes me rant, but I felt i had to with this one
Here you go... consider this....
I'm betting that for way lower than $4.3M, you could commission an entire grounds-keeping crew to build and maintain a walk in area complete with living grass and a flowing bed of water built right into your wall - complete with built in weather producing systems to simulate any weather condition you would like at the time.
... and you'd be providing a living wage for multiple people and thus helping their families, etc, etc, etc,...
I'll never comprehend the buying and selling of "art".
- Bill
Perhaps there is more to this picture than meets the eye. Maybe there is a hidden Swiss bank code authorisation access number hidden in it somewhere :-) or something sinister that we mere mortals are not aware of. BUT! if the price is based purely on it's merit (what ever that may be in this case) then I may as well find another hobby cos it's way beyond me :-(
Well, Rhein II is a better photo than the second-most expensive photo ...
I wonder if it's been Photoshopped!