$4 million photograph

[Jeffbridge]

What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?

[Colin Southern]

World's most expensive photo

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread24563.htm

[Polocks]

I think its not art but a competition between rich guys who would paid more
This painting [Mark Rothko –White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose), 1950] is worth 72 mln$

[lukaswerth]

Good comparison. It is the artist's name - Andreas Gursky, Mark Rothko, Jeff Koons, Damian Hirst - which establishes something like a brand, and this it what sells on a certain level.

Lukas

[shreds]

Probably to blind people with more money than sense.

An investment is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.

'The value of your investment may vary dependent upon market conditions. Your home may be repossessed if you do not keep up the repayments on the loan'

[ClaudioG]

I think its not art but a competition between rich guys who would paid more
This painting [Mark Rothko –White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose), 1950] is worth 72 mln$

Hmmmm i can imagine why.. bet Liqourice allsorts got there idea from this?

[Lancer]

Sorry, I can't imagine why it's worth so much!

[lukaswerth]

Sorry, I can't imagine why it's worth so much!

Okay, let me give it a try:
this is all about the structure and peculiarities of the art market. You have to look closely at what goes as art in these days, or, in other words, what art is supposed to be like. When we talk of art, we all tend to make a crucial distinction between an artist and an artisan, between art pure and proper, meant to be only this ("l'art pour l'art") and something with a use value - this dilutes the concept of art. The prior idea then is a concept intimately related to authorship, originality, carrying its purpose in itself. You may trace the origins of this concept to the European Renaissance when for the first time the artist became a celebrated and sought after figure whose personal style was very much evaluated (think of Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, El Greco...). Before that, it made little difference whether you made a picture or a table - authorship was no concept. The names of most medieval artists are not known.
Still, for centuries, pictures very much also had very much a use value. For the Renaissance painters, contracts were made about how many figures should be in a painting, how much expensive pigment should be used and where... and, of course, paintings were hardly ever painted only by the master himself, but routine tasks - at least - were given to helpers and apprentices.
It was the industrial revolution, and actually the advent of photography which again changed this. If you wanted a portrait of your beloved before, you had to get it painted. Then you visited a photographer's studio. Traveling and landscape, likewise. This freed painting for all sorts of experiments - hence the impressionists. Note that they popped up in Paris, a city much influenced by early photography (daguerreotypes came first). Now art became just an artist's imagination, linked very much to the notion of originality - just as in modernity the idea of progress (always something new!) became paramount, in art also you always had to differentiate yourself from what was before.
One thing did not change, however: art continued to be financed by the wealthy and powerful, by patrons, and what had been before the role of the church was taken over by the emerging museum culture (the state(s), that is). This is what created the art market in modernity, and it still very much does. Auctionary houses, galleries, museums, and wealthy patrons constitute its infrastructure. What they look for, the story they want to tell is about authors, geniuses, and this has become aggravated in the 20th century when abstract art really became something just like a stroke of will in which craft went completely behind the idea of an artist's statement (like exhibiting a rotting shark).
Consider two outcomes from this: 1) art history makes authorship paramount also retrospectively. In Berlin where I lived for many years is Rembrandt's "Man with the golden Helmet" - or is it really Rembrandt's? Modern art history has decided this picture is only painted by a student of the master, and therefore the virtual price of the painting has dropped to perhaps one fifth of what it was before. (Actually, I happen to think art history has somewhat over-sharpened its tools here, I cannot see why this picture should be less from Rembrandt's own hand than any other, and also, what all this does to the quality of the painting itself.)
2) A tortured search has started in modern discourses about what art is, and some give the answer: art is what sells as art. If this were true, van Gogh's pictures, which would all fetch prices of upwards of 100 Million $ today if anyone would sell them, would not have been art in his lifetime.

Now to Andreas Gursky: I think he is seen as in the tradition of the German Becher school, and he celebrates in his images something like contemporary emptiness: his pictures are all about modern spaces (including this artificially straight river) and lack a traditional center. That seems to be his brand distinction. Also, I think many would see the image "Rhine II" as quoting a famous Romantic painting by Caspar David Friedrich: "The Monk and the Sea" (at least, something like this should be the English title).

This, very much in a nutshell, would be my explanation.

Lukas

[Colin Southern]

Frankly, I don't have a clue - but hope I "crack the formula" some day!

I did do a short series on "Gursky's revenge" - a bargain at only $1,000,000 each, but still no takers !

[dabhand]

Frankly, I don't have a clue - but hope I "crack the formula" some day!

I did do a short series on "Gursky's revenge" - a bargain at only $1,000,000 each, but still no takers !

You need to follow the lead of the 'gurus' to get that kind of money

steve

[Donald]

You need to follow the lead of the 'gurus' to get that kind of money

steve

Hello, it's Guru here. Please send me a cheque for $1,000,000 and, once it clears through my account, I will send you the secret for success .

[dabhand]

Hello, it's Guru here. Please send me a cheque for $1,000,000 and, once it clears through my account, I will send you the secret for success .

Once this guy in west africa sends me the 4.5 million he's promised me I'll do just that !

steve

[RustBeltRaw]

Lukas, based on the depth of your answer, I suspect your experience in the art world is far greater than my own, but in my opinion, your definition of art ("art is what sells as art") is incomplete. Doesn't that imply that only pieces with price tags are art? I have found nothing better than Sarah Green's defintion; "art is a trigger for experience."

Rhein II is an odd one for many reasons. Outliers always are. I am especially amused by a paradox in Gursky's statement about the piece. From Rhein II's Wikipedia page: ""Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ, a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river."

Contending that manipulation produces a more accurate photo is seriously ambitious sleight-of-hand.

[lukaswerth]

Lukas, based on the depth of your answer, I suspect your experience in the art world is far greater than my own, but in my opinion, your definition of art ("art is what sells as art") is incomplete. Doesn't that imply that only pieces with price tags are art? I have found nothing better than Sarah Green's defintion; "art is a trigger for experience."

Rhein II is an odd one for many reasons. Outliers always are. I am especially amused by a paradox in Gursky's statement about the piece. From Rhein II's Wikipedia page: ""Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ, a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river."

Contending that manipulation produces a more accurate photo is seriously ambitious sleight-of-hand.

Lex,

I seem to detect a misunderstanding: this definition, I reported, is sometimes heard. I, however, think it is absolutely wrong, misleading, and an oxymoron. Further, I did not try to vindicate Rhein II. I'd have more to say regarding any definition of art of my own, but I also prefer any time Sarah Green's or similar ones. No question whatsoever!

Second, I also did not mean to vindicate Gursky. I wouldn't spend 4 quid on this - oh hold it, except perhaps for reselling it for 4 million and pocket the difference. What I meant was that Gursky works, and situates himself in line of the expectations of large parts of the art market. And such pretentious statements are just part of the game.

Lukas

[James G]

Lukas,
What interests me is that the discussion of 'what art is, is being generated the press, by artists, critics, and those interested in establishing reputations for 'discernment and appreciation'. Frankly I find these discussions to be mostly unintelligible.
Your explanation as to how modern art acquires 'monetary' value is informative and I am impressed with how you position the conflicting issues which come together within the general concept of 'Modern Art'.
Being rather simple minded in my approach to art appreciation I am aware that I habitually dismiss value when it is expressed in monetary terms. I expect this is mostly because I could never be in a position to consider personally acquiring these items. So that leaves me simply looking, and considering something and then deciding if it provokes a significant response within me.
More significantly, I find myself distrustful when presented with an intellectual explanation of what the artist is saying... to help me understand how really good it is. (Before I have had time to consider my own response to it.)
So to the nub, for me? is the photograph worth $4m? .....No, but that is only because value is irrelevant to me since I do not look to get hold of it..
Did id provoke any response with me?.... Not really... only disinterest.
Conversely, and this is unfair of me I know.......
Is Gaudi's temple, Sagrada Familia worth what is being invested?.... Yes .. and it's costing much more than $4m
Did it provoke a response from me?.. decidedly... it made me cry spontaneously when I first saw it.
I just hope that whoever bought Rhein II got the same kind of kick out of it, as I got out of seeing Sagrada Familia, in Barcelona, or from Harry Clarke's Stained Glass in the Wolfsonian, Miami, or from one of Sharon Reid's fantastic images on this forum.

[Colin Southern]

Once this guy in west africa sends me the 4.5 million he's promised me I'll do just that !

steve

I think you need to send him a few hundred for "expenses " first!