p.1 #3 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
People who consider a single web sized image out of context of the artifact and out of context of the artist's body of work deserve all the ignorance they display.
What is really pretentious are the middle tier so-called "fine art photographers" who produce murky B&W photos that have no tone higher than middle gray and no clear black, all for no reason that anyone can articulate.
p.1 #4 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
It really doesn't look difficult at all to "recapture" that image. Even the skypart, which is basically gray and boring, is not tough to be recreated. Oh, well....
p.1 #9 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Monito wrote:
People who consider a single web sized image out of context of the artifact and out of context of the artist's body of work deserve all the ignorance they display.
What is really pretentious are the middle tier so-called "fine art photographers" who produce murky B&W photos that have no tone higher than middle gray and no clear black, all for no reason that anyone can articulate.
Seriously... no, seriously? Come on... SERIOUSLY
I don't care how much detail there is in that grass or in that flat sky, this fits perfectly into the ridiculous genre we now call "modern art". Reminds me of a large red dot painted on canvas hanging in the Louvre.
Can't wait until this mediocre (at best) so-called art dies a painful death.
p.1 #10 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
AGeoJO wrote:
It really doesn't look difficult at all to "recapture" that image. Even the skypart, which is basically gray and boring, is not tough to be recreated. Oh, well....
The technical ease or difficulty required to create a piece of work does not by itself define the merits of art.
However, that point aside, much of Gursky's work does actually require a lot of set up time and post production effort. So I do not actually think you do realize the complexity that went into producing what on the surface is a simple abstract composition. The print itself is nearly 12 feet wide...a tad beyond the scope of a single raw file from a DSLR (especially 12 years ago when it was made). Creating the image itself also involved manipulation to remove buildings from the background. And face mounting to acrylic is not as simple as popping a photograph into a poster frame.
Moreover, as another poster suggested above, what you are missing here is context.
p.1 #11 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
It's nice and probably looks more special in person since I bet you see every little blade of grass and ripple and they grasses probably have nice sheen and silvery highlights and so on. It might have a spectacular silver highlight sheen to for all we know.
That said $4 million for it seems like just utter insanity. It's hard to price art compartively but it's also really hard to see how this is orders of magnitude more than tons of other stuff. It's all in the cachet as they say I guess. The artist is definitely a genius though of one sort or another heh. More power to him.
p.1 #12 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
gheller wrote:
Seriously... no, seriously? Come on... SERIOUSLY
I don't care how much detail there is in that grass or in that flat sky, this fits perfectly into the ridiculous genre we now call "modern art". Reminds me of a large red dot painted on canvas hanging in the Louvre.
Can't wait until this mediocre (at best) so-called art dies a painful death.
greg
I think if you understood the piece within the larger context of Gursky's body of work you might not be so quick to disparage an artist who has a strong vision behind his artwork and has obviously been very successful.
You don't have to like modern art. But because you don't like it, or you don't want to put the time or effort into trying to understand it, that doesn't mean that somehow it is equivalent in medioctrity to all the pet photos and cliche flower shots floating around the internet (and this forum).
p.1 #13 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
gheller wrote:
I don't care how much detail there is in that grass or in that flat sky, this fits perfectly into the ridiculous genre we now call "modern art". Reminds me of a large red dot painted on canvas hanging in the Louvre.
Seriously. Like I said, it seems you are unaware of the context of the artifact and the context of the photographer's body of work.
p.1 #15 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
At my pay grade, nothing is worth $4.3 million, except maybe my life, but that, I am afraid, would be forfeit. There's obviously enough people with means who value his creations to this degree.
p.1 #18 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
omarlyn wrote:
'Art' can be SO pretentious...or rather the critics & buyers of this kind of 'art'!
Omar
Are you remotely familiar with Gursky's photography? Have you ever seen a Gursky print? Are you aware of the scale of the particular version sold in this case? Do you know how many of them exist? Do you see anything in this tiny jpg beyond strips of green and gray? Have you considered the possibility that the jpg might not reveal what is in the actual print? Do you understand that real people who stand in front of a work like this respond to it in deeply powerful ways, and that they are not insane?
Art can be pretentious, but people who mouth off about stuff they don't understand and who jump to unwarranted conclusions about things concerning which they have no knowledge can exhibit the very sort of mindlessness that they claim to see in others.
Dan,
who likes Gursky's work, has seen it, thinks that it should fetch a very good price, but wonders whether this particular sale is a bit over the top...
p.1 #19 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Dan,
who likes Gursky's work, has seen it, thinks that it should fetch a very good price, but wonders whether this particular sale is a bit over the top...
Another who appreciates his work, I've stood in front of his large scale work in museums, and glad he can fetch a great price. I don't get the endless parade of model shots in magazines, besides the beauty of a woman, they all become similar, and the photogs who do beauty work for the mags get paid darn well, too.
p.1 #20 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
I'm sure the print is impressive and beautiful. But it's not a painting, it's a print. Thousands more could be made, none more or less original than the first. But instead, there is one valuable copy.
Because art purchasing is always pretentious, at least at this level. It's not so much about the art as it is about investing. I don't think there's anything wrong with the work, or even anything inherently wrong with inflating prices like that, but I doubt its value or the motives for purchase have much to do with how beautiful it is. It's turning art into currency.
