p.3 #2 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Oh well over here the cleaning lady did a little too good work on this $1.1 milion peice of art.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15613227
"an array of built erratic wooden planks with a rubber tray placed underneath"
p.3 #3 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
artd wrote:
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.
Interesting. I don't think anyone was hoping photography could be accepted as art so that they could be told to shut up when they personally are not impressed by a piece. Regardless, I don't think the boundaries of art are the center of this discussion but rather how something transcends from art to multi-million dollar investment. And that's always been a point of contention. That this multi-million dollar piece is a photograph is incidental.
p.3 #4 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
JamesBeach wrote:
Interesting. I don't think anyone was hoping photography could be accepted as art so that they could be told to shut up when they personally are not impressed by a piece. Regardless, I don't think the boundaries of art are the center of this discussion but rather how something transcends from art to multi-million dollar investment. And that's always been a point of contention. That this multi-million dollar piece is a photograph is incidental.
I'd appreciate if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I never told anyone to "shut up" or stop posting. I was trying to engage in a discussion (this is a discussion forum is it not?) in order to respond to comments others were making.
The point I am making is that I don't think people should be so quick to deem something as "junk" or "garbage" just because they don't like it or don't understand it. I personally do not care if folks are not impressed by the piece. That's fine. I am not impressed by a lot of things. But that doesn't mean I out of hand say they are worthless or ridicule them because they do not match my tastes.
I do think I disagree with your perception on where the discussion in this thread has centered. And I certainly would not call it incidental that the piece in question is a photograph, since this is after all a photography forum.
p.3 #6 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
gdanmitchell wrote:
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." ;-)...Show more →
Most of us could use some tips on improving our English and spelling. At least that's my opinion, though I'm not currently in uniform.
p.3 #8 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
A lot of the posts and attitudes here are exactly why a lot of people in the art world don`t take photographers very seriously. If you don`t understand it maybe ask why......if you don`t like it just say you don`t like it.......your condescending attitudes only show the art world how simple many photographers really are........
p.3 #9 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
artd wrote:
I'd appreciate if you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I never told anyone to "shut up" or stop posting. I was trying to engage in a discussion (this is a discussion forum is it not?) in order to respond to comments others were making.
The point I am making is that I don't think people should be so quick to deem something as "junk" or "garbage" just because they don't like it or don't understand it. I personally do not care if folks are not impressed by the piece. That's fine. I am not impressed by a lot of things. But that doesn't mean I out of hand say they are worthless or ridicule them because they do not match my tastes.
I do think I disagree with your perception on where the discussion in this thread has centered. And I certainly would not call it incidental that the piece in question is a photograph, since this is after all a photography forum....Show more →
I'm not putting words in your mouth. Saying that it's ironic that photographers are so critical of art is tantamount to telling them to be quiet because they're lucky to be in the club. The fact of the matter is that people have been saying art, all works of art, suck and are stupid and any number of other criticisms for as long as art has been a thing to go out and see. Some people will hate it regardless of what it is; get used to it. That people who happen to take photographs are likewise human and so subject to liking and not liking things isn't ironic or anything else except normal.
It is absolutely incidental that the piece is a photograph. That it's a photo (and the most expensive single print) might have resulted in it getting mentioned here, but other than that, it's just another in a very long line of expensive art pieces. That is the source of most of the ridicule you object to. How could anyone pay that much money? As has already been established, we suspect it has nothing to do with its artistic value.
p.3 #10 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
I accompanied an art teacher and class to the art gallery in Sydney recently. There was a presentation on "Landscape Photography" which I sat through. I listened to a very learned art expert talk about various artists and she showed the photos on a projector. I was shocked! One work was a grassy mound with no trees. To me I would have deleted it from my camera, plain, boring no centre of interest. Apparently there was a "deeper hidden meaning" as the place was once the site of an "unmarried mothers refuge"... there were dead still born babies buried beneath the hill! But what about people looking at the image as a stand alone piece as artwork? Who don't know about the history? I could go out right now and take a better photo of a hill near where I live...but without the hidden meaning?
There was also a photo taken by an indigenous artist of some yellow strands of grass against a clear blue sky. The photographer had taken a very low viewpoint to access the blue sky background. The expert went on about how in Renaissance art blue and gold stood for royalty and the kingdom of God. She then showed some classic art of Jesus and his mother which clearly had the blue and gold colouring. This photo of the grass was obviously about the spiritual nature of the land to indigenous people , that's why he used those colours. Really? or was it just that the grass was yellow and the sky was blue that day? I am sorry ,but I see a river and some green grassy banks, unless this was the site of some event or historical landmark, I am lost as to how it passes as art. I am reminded of the "emperors new clothes syndrome" where people see something just because everybody else says they do. Also there is the story of the abstract art that was accidentally hung upside down, admired for months as amazing artwork, until one day the artist visited the gallery and pointed out that it was obviously upside down! Ok shoot me down now.
p.3 #12 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
marko1953 wrote:
...I see a river and some green grassy banks, unless this was the site of some event or historical landmark, I am lost as to how it passes as art.
You might feel differently if you had seen the actual piece in person. Yes, the subject matter is part of the work, but it's not all. If this had been a 35mm mounted slide, or an 8 X 10 print on coated paper I doubt that anyone would have paid huge sums for it. But it's a 5-foot X 12-foot translucent image on an acrylic slab; the form is part and parcel of the project.
p.3 #13 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
BrianO wrote:
You might feel differently if you had seen the actual piece in person. Yes, the subject matter is part of the work, but it's not all. If this had been a 35mm mounted slide, or an 8 X 10 print on coated paper I doubt that anyone would have paid huge sums for it. But it's a 5-foot X 12-foot translucent image on an acrylic slab; the form is part and parcel of the project.
That may be, but I am still trying to figure out why anyone would make a 5 x12 print of it in the first place. Since art is in the eye of the beholder I certainly won't disparage the artist or the buyer but I will exercise my equal right to say that I don't get it.
PS. I love a lot of his work and find them to be complex, thoughtful, and very well executed images. This one doesn't fall into that category for me.
PPS. Good for him. Anybody getting that kind of money for any photograph is a good thing for photography in general.
p.3 #14 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Just showed this image to my girlfriend after telling her of this thread last evening. She leaned over the computer and said, "Oh. That's nice. Don't know if I'd pay no million dollars for it though." I smiled and said, "4.3 million".
She walked off into the kitchen looking back over her shoulder and said, "You'd better start doing some work like that Hon." Laughed and said, "I want that million dollars."
I was thinking about this image last evening. I wonder what he got paid for the original and how he feels about seeing it sold for such a princely sum. I suspect he got a fraction of that.
Tom thanks for posting that, really fun video to watch and gives you a new perspective.
Gursky does seem like quite a nice chap
At the end he explained the Rhine II photo. Gursky is a runner and this is along his jogging route. He says this is his favorite photo, obviously he has some sentimental attachment to it. Still amazed at the selling price but he seems to be a pretty genuine guy not some snobby artist we might be tempted to assume. Good for him.
