p.2 #1 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
JamesBeach wrote:
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.
Actually there are six. But whether a photograph should be worth less than a painting because it is more easily reproducible is an entierly different discussion.....
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.
I would agree with you that the valuation has gone beyond simple artistic merit. However, it is always so with iconic pieces of artwork. And the point is that artwork becomes iconic in the first place due to artisic merit.
And I will add that the pretentious nature of art purchasing is only rivaled by the pretnetious nature of internet forums
p.2 #4 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
At first glance I thought it was boring but on second look I noticed that the strong parallel lines are riveting. Not the most impressive photo (to me) but I do find that it holds my attention and it is a strong and simple composition.
p.2 #6 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Having studied art history through most of recorded civilization, for a variety of media, let me be the first to say that I really enjoy modern and contemporary art. I am particularly fond of Abstract Expressionism, which to those who have followed my posts and have observed my tendencies toward (overly) technical language and thinking, should not be too surprising. If anything, I prefer it over, say, Renaissance notions of figurative realism.
But at the same time, what we see here in this fellow's work is not that this photograph is illegitimate or not a "good" work. It's not that it cannot stand on its own merits. The reason why the work sold for what it did is simply because a group of people has decided that it has a certain collectible value, almost completely disconnected from the aesthetic value. To them, the monetary value is a reflection of the artist's notoriety, and consequently, its marketability and its worth as an investment.
I see "better" photographs than this one almost every day. I could just go on 500px and be blown away by one incredible image after another. I could open up National Geographic to almost any page and see something more compelling and more artistic--not because Gursky's image is devoid of artistic expression, but because like most other photographers (and perhaps most other people in general), I evaluate the aesthetics of the photograph by criteria that the collectors and curators do not.
It's important to understand that when a contemporary work commands a price that seems totally out of proportion to its aesthetic notability, it isn't necessarily a commentary on the pretentiousness or validity of modern art, or the artwork, or the artist. It is, however, a reflection on the art critics, the collectors, the galleries, and the business of art. Anyone who has endeavored to produce fine art and who has reached a certain degree of competence in doing so understands this. It sucks, but that's just the way it is. Perhaps one should take a small degree of solace in the notion that someone is not going to get their return on investment.
p.2 #10 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
One man's dross is another man's gold, as the saying goes.
A few months ago I was at the Seattle Art Museum; I was enjoying the van Goghs and the Matisses and the Renoirs...and then over in one corner on the floor I saw a pile of chicken wire with some paint splashed on it. "Oh no," I though to myself, "Some construction worker didn't clean up after himself."
Guess what? That pile of chicken wire was a "sculpture" that the SAM curators thought belonged in the same class as a Rodin or a Calder.
p.2 #11 · 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
gdanmitchell wrote:
Are you remotely familiar with Gursky's photography? 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... ...Show more →
Ummm...my comment was aimed squarely at critics and buyers...NOT at the artist or a true admirer of a particular work. The 'business' of art can and is in fact VERY pretentious.
p.2 #12 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
RobDickinson wrote:
Its still photographic junk...
Speaking of pretentious, offering your apparently uniformed opinion as if it were a fact certainly qualifies.
Tell us what you know about the photograph and about valuing photography. Tell us that you know Gursky's work. Tell us that you know it in print form - not in jpg form. Tell us what you think is better and why. Convince us that your opinion means more than "I don't understand this photograph."
We could have a reasonable discussion about whether the print is or is not worth as much as it sold for, and we could have a reasonable discussion about the various genres and styles of photography and our personal preferences for one over the other.
However, you don't do justice to us, to Gursky, or to your own presumed intelligence by simply writing "it's... junk."*
Dan
(* Yes, it's "it's," not "its" when "it's" means "it is." ;-)
p.2 #13 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
I didn't post this to make fun of the man's body of work nor to critique this particular photo. As some of you have stated 'art' is subjective. For me its a VERY plain photo of nothing of consequence. If it is 12 feet tall and standing in front of it makes me feel as though I am standing in front of the river probably more impressive. For $4.3M I would prefer to buy the property and setup my trailer and look at this view every day if I liked it that much. Probably with a half empty beer in my hand...but thats just me
p.2 #14 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
svassh wrote:
I didn't post this to make fun of the man's body of work nor to critique this particular photo. As some of you have stated 'art' is subjective. For me its a VERY plain photo of nothing of consequence. If it is 12 feet tall and standing in front of it makes me feel as though I am standing in front of the river probably more impressive. For $4.3M I would prefer to buy the property and setup my trailer and look at this view every day if I liked it that much. Probably with a half empty beer in my hand...but thats just me ...Show more →
p.2 #18 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Both "art" and "trash" are subjective and interchangeable notions.
That photograph reminds me of this piece of art (or trash) for which Canada paid $1.8 million many years ago.
Equally laden with hidden meanings and emotionally stirring those two masterpieces are.
p.2 #19 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
It wasn't that long ago that people in the "art world" were debating whether or not photography was worthy of being considered as art in its own right alongside more "traditional" artwork such as paintings. I find it ironic that photographers have struggled to have their medium recognized as art, and yet today they are quick to trash someone's work because it doesn't fit in with their notion of what art should be.
