JJump said:
If Gursky didn't put his name on it, and tried to sell it under an unknown photographer name, it wouldn't get a nickel either. His name shouldn't make it valuable, important, or art.

But this is how the business of selling art works.

I know some examples of writers or musicians who published work under a different name for various reasons (e.g. to find out if this also sells or to do something their audience would not expect), but I can't recall any photographer who has done something similar. Anyone any examples?

SquamishPhoto said:
But you couldn't sell it for a nickel if you tried.

If Gursky didn't put his name on it, and tried to sell it under an unknown photographer name, it wouldn't get a nickel either. His name shouldn't make it valuable, important, or art.

Idiots will be parted from their money.

sevencrossing said:
We had better not discuss KR it is against forum rules

But I suspect KR has not heard of little know artist called David Hockney

As to what is and what is not "art", has been and will be, debated for ever

My intention was never to bring about KR as the central of discussion, it was more on his take on the subject matter. Moreover, my comment on "what it is worth" was a pun...if you get my meaning on the word "worth."

golf007sd said:
Here is Ken Rockwell's take on the photo...for what it is worth.

.

We had better not discuss KR it is against forum rules

But I suspect KR has not heard of little know artist called David Hockney

As to what is and what is not "art", has been and will be, debated for ever

But you couldn't sell it for a nickel if you tried. Thats the point. And I agree that KR is a tard, but really, no one actually cares or takes him seriously when he makes ridiculous, sweeping statements about art and photography. Bottom line with him, he can't even take a good picture. Success in his world is measured in hits, not imagery.

^
Another worthless KR rant with no point. Lots of big words thrown out there, but no substance or meaning.

The bottom line is, I could take a better shot with a throwaway camera -- and still call it art.

Here is Ken Rockwell's take on the photo...for what it is worth.

"This modern photo by a living artist is worth over $4 million because it is simple.

It is valuable because it is art, not just a photo.

Rules are worthless. If he was just a photographer instead of an artist, he would have been crippled by the nonexistent "rule of thirds" myth, and put the horizon someplace else. In his case, the horizon slams right through the middle, which adds to the power by giving a sense of unease. Our minds ask "what's up with this? This is so barren and empty; where is this place?"

Likewise, if it's not captured on film, it is not art. Artists create art, not photographers. Artists may choose to work in photography, but being an artist is what matters above all. I can't think of any iconic photo ever created with a digital camera. People don't think (FART) when shooting digital, which renders zillions of meaningless "captures" every minute, but art requires concentration. "If you didn't FART, it's not art" as they say at Yale.

In this case, the world's best photo (as gauged by price, the way modern man values things) was shot on a Linhof large-format camera, not some SLR. Because his large-format camera allowed tilting the film and lens, everything from near to infinity was in perfect focus; no "depth-of-field" or stopping-down required.

If shot with a digital Nikon or Canon like amateur photographers, it would not have been art. If he used a zoom lens or many modern prime lenses, their distortion would have subtly curved the lines, weakening and destroying the artist's work.

You can jack all you want with Photoshop and printer profiles and megapixels, but if you don't get the basics right, it's pointless. In this work, the artist knew what he wanted, and did what he had to to make it so. The artist's vision is everything; his tools are nothing."

That is just insane to think that.

Ok, joking aside, the only reason I can think of as to why this photo would sell for that much is because it's completely opposite to Gursky's usual photographic composition. In most if not all of his photos he takes a chaotic environment and shows a side of it that where there is some order. At the same time the chaos in his photos usually converges into very defined geometric shapes (squares, rectangles, curves, lines...). You could say his theme is order in chaos.

This photo on the other hand is in stark opposite to his usual style. There is no chaos. There is no life. The only plants in the photo is the plain grass. There is not a single cloud in the sky. The river feels like it's standing still. Even the little walkway besides the river is devoid of any markings. In short, it's the quite possibly the blandest photo ever shot but it's shot by the king of chaotic photos no less.

This is the only reason I can think of that could give this picture any value. Whoever bought it could be thinking that the photo would gain in price since it's so rare for Gursky to shoot something like that. Anybody has any idea who bought the picture btw?

We'll I'm glad to see that we are all in agreement that this photo is not, in my/our humble opinion, not worth anywhere close to that price is was sold for. Which leads me to question what the: "Price includes buyer's premium" is all about.

Thanks for the feed back ladies and gents.

i was devestated to be out bid and lost that fantastic photo all for the sake of $100.... i had a prime wall in my garage that would of suited that piece just perfect

ah well i'll just need to emuslusion the wall now and like it lol

sevencrossing said:
I suspect he is not the slightest bit interested what appeal it has to us, just the appeal to the person who paid $4,338,500 and of course the under bidder

I don't even think so. From what I read at the link it was the property of a private collector. Most likely the photographer sold it for a lot less...

And as Gareth pointed out it is in fact 3.6 m wide and might look totally different in real life (or it might look just like the web image). But either way someone found it interesting enough - for whatever reason - to pay $4,338,500.

Because Art and Photography are strange bedfellows.

If you are first an artist, and mix in the right circles, you can usually find someone who is impressed by your mediocre photographs.

I am in the wrong life.

SkintBrit said:
That's because he's the only one of us who can see any photographic appeal in it!

I suspect he is not the slightest bit interested what appeal it has to us, just the appeal to the person who paid $4,338,500 and of course the under bidder

Correlli said:
Agreed, but on the other hand he is the one who found that spot and took the photo.

That's because he's the only one of us who can see any photographic appeal in it!

JJump said:
Which makes it all the more worse of a photo. The trillion things to photograph in the world and he picks that spot. Dreadful.

:))

Correlli said:
Agreed, but on the other hand he is the one who found that spot and took the photo.

Which makes it all the more worse of a photo. The trillion things to photograph in the world and he picks that spot. Dreadful.

maybe the peoson who bought it lives in Alaska or Siberia

however, it would have been easier to relocate.

the photograph has no point of interest, and, it does not matter who you are, to buy that picture just because of who took it for that kind of money.

you had to have had more money than sense.

superplaya href="http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4286#post-70976">said:
he bought it himself, just to get the price up there

Probably not

I recently visited the local art trail, most of the work seemed to be bought by other artists, I suspect there is a bit of, if you scratch my back ....
and may be this also goes on at the top end of the market

Looking at the art you have bought over the years , how many of us have bought a fellow photographers work ??

and how many of us try to sell large Art Prints ?

Ansell Adam, thanks to Albert Bender, got on the right track, but he only made serious money from his prints in later life. Ansel, like a lot of us, paid the mortgage doing humdrum Commercial photography

well, i have to imagine it looks different in a real photographic print that is 3.6m wide under plexiglas.

but it sure is boring, there doesn't seem to be any dimension that could be enhanced.

$4,338,500 is alot of photographic equipment.

JJump said:
Anyone who can hold a camera straight can go to the exact same spot and easily get the same photo.

Agreed, but on the other hand he is the one who found that spot and took the photo.

I think that if you can sell a piece of art for such a price you need to do a lot before that to get famous. No one would pay that amount of money if someone of us took the photo - at least not today :)

Personally I somehow like it. But I would not pay $4.000.000 even if I had that kind of money.

Anyone who can hold a camera straight can go to the exact same spot and easily get the same photo.

He is an artist that makes HUGE photo prints, not posters but actual developed prints. I believe he has some that are 20ft wide. It's 73 x 143 in = 6ft x 12ft. That is one of the most boring ones I have seen though. It's unique and no one else is doing it - that is all that needs to be said. I have seen other works of his go in the range of $2-5 million.

Personally, I don't get it either.

iris chrome said:
What all of you amateurs seem to forget is that Andreas Gursky's style of photography is... nah I got nothing :p

That had me truly laughing out loud :o)

I think the shot is pretty interesting. Worth $40? I might buy it. Worth five orders of magnitude more than that? Ridiculous.