p.6 #1 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
skibum5 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
To some folk in this world, $4 million is a cup of coffee.
p.6 #2 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
The other day I accidentally fired my camera with the lens cap on. The resulting frame is dark, existentially dark, and reflects the difficult nature of existence.
Now, can I start the bidding please?
Do I hear $50,000? Who will start bidding on this profound work of art?
p.6 #5 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Sure. Go ahead.
And if you are right that this is the equivalent of Gursky's photograph and that "those people will pay $4.3 mil for anything no matter how stupid," then I'm sure you'll make $4.3 mil for your black print.
But maybe you won't.
It might be worth wondering why.
Dan
David Baldwin wrote:
The other day I accidentally fired my camera with the lens cap on. The resulting frame is dark, existentially dark, and reflects the difficult nature of existence.
Now, can I start the bidding please?
Do I hear $50,000? Who will start bidding on this profound work of art?
p.6 #7 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Some people here have expressed that they think the piece is not worth looking at. To me, it caught immediate interest, and it keeps on growing each time I revisit.
Some people here have expressed that they think the photograph is easy to make or recapture. I don't think so. The composition is rather complex in its simplicity. And even the clouds follow the horizontal lines, while matching the rest in color and monotonicity. The point of interest triggers my curiosity.
That being said, I have read in a norwegian translation that the photographer thinks that the photograph itself is unsatisfying, as it constitutes only a part of a photograph.
p.6 #11 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
People just want to belittle Gursky's work as a convenient distortion to support an unfounded dislike toward the pricing of modern day fine art photography. The value a buyer places on a photograph has a lot more to do than just the merits of the photograph itself.
That being said, it's just silly to be disparaging about the work when a. you haven't seen it in person, b. you haven't looked at it for longer than the .1 seconds it took you to pass judgment, and c. you don't understand how much artistic and technical skill to produce the Rhein II and other prints by Gursky. You're insulting Gursky for what? For making a lot of money on a print? It seems the dumbfounded first reaction toward the price paid for the photograph clouds better judgment for most.
The best part is that the people defending the photograph can actually come up with reasonable, articulate responses rather than one-line knee-jerk reactions.
mowensphotogra wrote:
absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't consider this as a good shot in a million years
Really? Why?
Don't say "anyone could make this print" because not only could you not, but you didn't.
p.6 #12 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
+1 on all counts.
ontime wrote:
People just want to belittle Gursky's work as a convenient distortion to support an unfounded dislike toward the pricing of modern day fine art photography. The value a buyer places on a photograph has a lot more to do than just the merits of the photograph itself.
That being said, it's just silly to be disparaging about the work when a. you haven't seen it in person, b. you haven't looked at it for longer than the .1 seconds it took you to pass judgment, and c. you don't understand how much artistic and technical skill to produce the Rhein II and other prints by Gursky. You're insulting Gursky for what? For making a lot of money on a print? It seems the dumbfounded first reaction toward the price paid for the photograph clouds better judgment for most.
The best part is that the people defending the photograph can actually come up with reasonable, articulate responses rather than one-line knee-jerk reactions.
Really? Why?
Don't say "anyone could make this print" because not only could you not, but you didn't. ...Show more →
p.6 #14 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
"Sure. Go ahead.
And if you are right that this is the equivalent of Gursky's photograph and that "those people will pay $4.3 mil for anything no matter how stupid," then I'm sure you'll make $4.3 mil for your black print.
But maybe you won't.
It might be worth wondering why."
Oh cheer up Dan. I was obviously being flippant! I don't REALLY expect any money for a blank shot (although I seem to remember a famous modern music composer releasing a CD with no sound on it, not a million miles away from my post).
Having said that, its hard to see what is so incredibly inspiring about the landscape photo that was sold. On that basis I find its fame rather depressing. But thats the art speculation market for you.
p.6 #16 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
There are 2 different issues here that I feel some people are confusing.
One is artistic merit, which is totally subjective and any one has the right to an opinion - although it must be acknowledged that seeing a jpeg and seeing the original work are definitely not the same thing. When I was a relatively young man I went to the National Gallery in London and saw Seurat's Bathers at Asnières. I had seen the painting many times in books and it struck me as pleasant but unremarkable but when I saw it in the gallery I was blown away and I stood transfixed in front of it for literally 45 minutes. On that scale the pointillism was breathtaking and I found myself moving back and forth watching the textures blend and reveal themselves.
The second issue is market value and that is something different. It is governed to some degree by perceptions of artistic merit but not the perceptions of people like me who are not in a financial position to bid for these works. When people pay millions for a work of art they do it partly to impress other rich folk and partly because they believe the work will be saleable for a higher sum in the future. They aren't always right but that's the nature of speculative investment.
Gursky is lucky enough to be seeing these sorts of prices for his work while he's still alive so hopefully he's making enough money to be financially secure and to go on producing what he sees as meritorious - no matter what the rest of us think.
p.6 #17 · To think I would not have even kept this Raw File...
Gursky is a brand. Someone who buys his work buys an exclusive piece of Gursky ... and because a couple of rich dudes (who are all into Gursky being this great artists) are willing to overbid themselves to be the very one getting this bit, this price was established. The picture alone wouldn't be worth that much of money to anyone.
