$4.3 Million Photo

[maidu]

A 1999 photo by German artist Andreas Gursky which sold recently at Christie's. Man, I gotta get in to a different line of work.

My 5 year old daughter could take a more interesting photo than that. I guess I would say the same about doodles by Picasso. There are true artists and there are ok artists who are able to ramp up the values of their creations by the strength of their constant self-publicity and errant personalities. Besides Picasso, I would include Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock in that category. There are many others, including musicians and actors and politicians.

[pauljones]

4.3 Million?

Well, it's not easy to get that horizon level. Good work.

[harrry]

What would it be worth if the Loch Ness monster had not submerged too soon?

[watutsi]

Then i suggest you buy your 5 year old daughter a decent camera, hire her a publicist, and retire.

[astral]

What is it?

A dirty fish tank............

[MAJIC]

I totally agree with you a ridiculous price, for a thoughly boring picture.

Picasso is a different kettle of fish,a great Artist,and if you study his pencil and charcoal drawings,you will no doubt appreciate his talent!

I suspect he took the Art world and critics for the no nothing pretentious idiots they were,and produced nonsense modern Art, and when he died they found over 26,000 rubbish Paintings,in his basement.

Sometimes he would go down to his basement,and knock out two or three hundred paintings in one afternoon. To keep the the price up they were released one at a time.I don't believe anyone can turn out that quantity,without sacrificing the quality.but it was not about quality,merely parting the rich from their money,a straight forward Con,that the Mega Rich gladly succumbed to. After all, while you have a painting on your wall with a trianglular face,one eyeball,and a skinny neck,which cost £500,000,then you know you have made it.

imho Picasso was a wonderful real Artist, but more of a Joker/Pisstaker.

Andy Wharhol,was a talented Graphic Designer,but I can't say I have seen any sign of the traditional meaning of Art from him.

Edited December 18, 2011 by MAJIC

[VerbalKint]

@OP

And you needed to share this opinion with us because:

1 - your daughter is the most talented artist there ever was

2 - you want to show off your incredible knowledge about contemporary art

3 - you are a bit jealous that this artist has more money in his bank account than you

4 - this opinion is very relevant and never heard before so the world needs to know

5 - you want to be the member of this forum with the highest amount of posts

6 - you are now the proud owner of this photograph but you are somewhat disappointed

7 - .........................................

the right answer wins you a trip to Tate modern

[MAJIC]

@OP

And you needed to share this opinion with us because:

1 - your daughter is the most talented artist there ever was

2 - you want to show off your incredible knowledge about contemporary art

3 - you are a bit jealous that this artist has more money in his bank account than you

4 - this opinion is very relevant and never heard before so the world needs to know

5 - you want to be the member of this forum with the highest amount of posts

6 - you are now the proud owner of this photograph but you are somewhat disappointed

7 - .........................................

the right answer wins you a trip to Tate modern

The answer to all of the above questions is NO,

and I have been to the Tate Gallery,so give the trip to someone more deserving,or treat yourself.

My Posting and views were intended to be of interest,if it wasn't of any interest to you,then no problem, seems like you are expecting a prize for third rate witticism, and not even a good Troll either!

You didn't buy a reject Picasso,as an investment,did you?

Edited December 19, 2011 by MAJIC

[Naam]

What would it be worth if the Loch Ness monster had not submerged too soon?

you mean you can't see it?

[Naam]

Picasso

-bought a Picasso litho (signed) and several Miros at an auction for a friend,

-wife says let's keep them, they add a nice contrast,

-did not really mind the Miros, just thought "women folks and their irrational farts",

-hung the Picasso in the rarely used library,

-whenever i read a book and paused i hesitated to look up, because...

-...the Picasso showed an ugly² nekkid woman with shifted eyes, twisted limbs and the hairiest woolly-woolly on earth,

-was happy when my friend took the paintings a few years later.

[lannarebirth]

I think it's a nice photograph. The thing that I fined queer about the price it garnered is that almost anyone can go to that same spot and more or less duplicate it and their shots would be worth nothing.

[VerbalKint]

@OP, no didn't buy a reject Picasso. (wish I could afford it)

I found the "my 5 year old daughter can do that" remark rather stupid.

[watutsi]

Picasso

-bought a Picasso litho (signed) and several Miros at an auction for a friend,

-wife says let's keep them, they add a nice contrast,

-did not really mind the Miros, just thought "women folks and their irrational farts",

-hung the Picasso in the rarely used library,

-whenever i read a book and paused i hesitated to look up, because...

-...the Picasso showed an ugly² nekkid woman with shifted eyes, twisted limbs and the hairiest woolly-woolly on earth,

-was happy when my friend took the paintings a few years later.

I keep my Picasso postcard on a rarely used shelf.

[MAJIC]

@OP, no didn't buy a reject Picasso. (wish I could afford it)

I found the "my 5 year old daughter can do that" remark rather stupid.

I think you are getting rather confused,as to who you are replying to?

The answers to the 2 lines above are from 2 different Posters!

[maidu]

from the real OP: I actually don't have a 5 year old daughter - it's a figment of speech. I do have a 35 year old daughter though, and she does better than take bland photos, she actually breeds thousands of fruit trees - which have a tangible benefit for people.

Incidentally, I did some more thinking about Jackson Pollack, and am thinking perhaps he was underrated by the likes of me. I'd like to see the movie about him. I don't know if Pollack was thinking this when he splattered paint on canvases, but his type of art is different from other prior types (besides the obvious reasons). Here's why:

>>>> he didn't paint patterns. Think about it, most art is stuck with a motif that's repeated, in other words; patterns. Certainly true of nearly all architecture.

>>>> he didn't paint fill in the blanks. Nearly all artworks involve an outline which is filled with color, either flat or shaded color. Certainly much of Picasso's and Warhol's stuff was like that. But even the classical masterpieces were often made from tasteful slabs of color.

Pollack, like him or not, was possibly the first well-known painter to stray from those two painting methods mentioned above.

Good on all the folks who like Picasso. And yes I'm aware he was able to paint realistic renditions of people and things. Even so, I don't care for his stuff. Just my opinion. His contemporary (from 120 miles away), Salvidor Dali, is a different story altogether - true genius.

[BangkokImages]

I found myself taking your guys side of this issue on a professional photographers forum over the last few weeks.. and of course I was pummeled pretty well by the knowledgeable art crowd.

I still stand by my take on this photography but through this thread there were some good points made.

a. Gursky is a talented photographer and those who have seen his works in person universally agree they're very good. They also agree his work needs to be seen at the size he prints it to fully appreciate the composition. I would agree with both points, the guy is really good and a good photographer does compose the image to be presented at a certain size/range.

b. The "value" of art is set by more than just a single image. Past works, reputation, periods in their development, death, if it's being sold for charity, many things can affect the price. Still seems silly high to me but what do I know..

c. Supposedly the compositional elements are very hard to achieve. Perhaps. But I've studied THIS image quite a bit and I don't agree.

d. It's immaterial if you, or your five year old pet parrot, could have taken the same photograph. There are too many external and internal variables where this just doesn't matter.

My original comment was that THIS image looks like something my wife would delete from her point and shoot compact. I stand by that, but I think she'd take issue with that statement. She's really a better photographer. Gursky IS a very good photographer. I just don't see this particular image as compelling in any way except one. It's created a lot of buzz and discussion about art, what defines art, how to value art, and many other variables. Considering the amount of people who have participated, or even read, this controversy.. I'd say 4.3 million is cheap education when you consider the numbers. Let's say 25 million (a conservative number I think) have viewed this image, read the chaff concerning those who take issue or support the work, and do the math.. a bit more than 25 cents per person to learn all I've learned.. is dirt cheap. More than a bargain.

[MAJIC]

from the real OP: I actually don't have a 5 year old daughter - it's a figment of speech. I do have a 35 year old daughter though, and she does better than take bland photos, she actually breeds thousands of fruit trees - which have a tangible benefit for people.

Incidentally, I did some more thinking about Jackson Pollack, and am thinking perhaps he was underrated by the likes of me. I'd like to see the movie about him. I don't know if Pollack was thinking this when he splattered paint on canvases, but his type of art is different from other prior types (besides the obvious reasons). Here's why:

>>>> he didn't paint patterns. Think about it, most art is stuck with a motif that's repeated, in other words; patterns. Certainly true of nearly all architecture.

>>>> he didn't paint fill in the blanks. Nearly all artworks involve an outline which is filled with color, either flat or shaded color. Certainly much of Picasso's and Warhol's stuff was like that. But even the classical masterpieces were often made from tasteful slabs of color.

Pollack, like him or not, was possibly the first well-known painter to stray from those two painting methods mentioned above.

Good on all the folks who like Picasso. And yes I'm aware he was able to paint realistic renditions of people and things. Even so, I don't care for his stuff. Just my opinion. His contemporary (from 120 miles away), Salvidor Dali, is a different story altogether - true genius.

[/quote/]

Majic said:

Agreed: a Genius,

Never mind,even if his Surrealist work was often drug induced,for inspiration!

[/quote/]

Edit: Some problem with the quotes here,no idea what though?

Edited December 21, 2011 by MAJIC

[aussiebebe]

I know nothing about this artist and was baffled as to why it commanded such a high price but after reading about it I can see that financially it was probably worth the money as such art will continue to appreciate (whatever one thinks of the art itself). Artistically, I think it's valuable because it was taken at a time when photography was still in the process of being accepted as a real art-form, so it looks simple but really took a lot of planning and skill to pull off which made it all the more daring.

Thanks to the OP for the though-provoking post, it certainly prompted me to broaden my horizons.

[maidu]

I agree that art items, like real estate and gems and stocks, are only as valuable as they can sell for. I admire the photographer in the sense that he can get such large amounts of money for a few photos (an earlier photo of his, of a convenience store display of its items for sale, was a prior record setter for highest price).

A couple years ago, a cold grilled cheese sandwich sold for a high price on E-bay, because it's shadings appeared to show a likeness of the Virgin Mary's face - so pretty much anything is sell-able in these odd times.

On the other end of the spectrum, there was the largest state in the USA which sold for $7.2 million.

In today's dollars, that's $113 million (28 cents per acre or 11 cents a rai). Comparing sale prices, the entire state of Alaska is worth 26 such photos.

Edited December 22, 2011 by maidu