# $4 Million Photograph



## Jeffbridge (Feb 24, 2014)

What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?


----------



## ahab1372 (Feb 24, 2014)

Nothing, in my opinion


----------



## Eldar (Feb 24, 2014)

The buyer must have thought he paid in Zimbabwe dollars


----------



## dr croubie (Feb 24, 2014)

Spend years building up a name for yourself, then sell it to someone who then sells it for a shiteload more than you'll ever get...


----------



## Lightmaster (Feb 24, 2014)

i remember we had that discussion before.


as to what makes it worth it.

first gursky has a name in the art scene. second it´s about speculation with art.

i can paint pollock images all day and never get a cent for it.
actually that´s not true as i have sold such abstract stuff on microstock agencys. 

maybe some billionair collector really likes it. 
and it´s a BIG image.

cindy shermans picture sucks too .... and is small in comparisation. ;D


----------



## docsmith (Feb 24, 2014)

Yep...Gursky's image has been brought up a couple of times. I found this video interesting. The link to the original from a thread a couple of years ago doesn't work, but I found it in three parts on youtube:

Andreas Gursky (1 de 3)
Andreas Gursky (2 de 3)
Andreas Gursky (3 de 3)


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 24, 2014)

Money laundering, tax breaks, very questionably business deals etc.

Who knows. Some of those pictures are extremely artistic and do look more like paintings than they do photography. Maybe that is the point.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 24, 2014)

Does the creator of the videos obsess much...

can one say "Restraining order"

Then again, would make a great drinking game... Every time the creator says "Gursky" you have to do a shot.


----------



## Corvi (Feb 24, 2014)

AS he himself says it. Its art becasue you wouldnt think its art. The picture has a lot in comming with Warhols works, or Duchamps. The piece is lifted out of its plain and boring state into a piece of something meaningful. You have dozens of scenes you walk by without thinking about them becasue the moment you look at it last so short that you dont even realize the importance of the scene, but by taking a photograph of it you make that moment special. You can observe it in all its proportions and layers, in all its details. That is what makes Gurskys work so great. Its so ordinary that its insanely special again.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2014)

Jeffbridge said:


> What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?


It's not the photograph, but the photoshop skills required to remove a few structures from the scene that makes it so valuable...

Now, who wants to offer me $5,000,000 for this incredibly rare picture of Neil Armstrong's cat which travelled with him to the moon......


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Jeffbridge said:
> 
> 
> > What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?
> ...



Don,
I'll place my bid - $5,000,001


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Jeffbridge said:
> 
> 
> > What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?
> ...


Hey Don, I prefer the picture of the cat on the moon. But I have not much money to buy it. However, as you are not yet a famous "artist", can give me a nice discount, and sell to me for only $ 1,000,000? Seriously, The photo of auction is one of the most "boring" that I've ever seen. These auctions of "art" are a good way to make money laundering and other tax crimes. I want to see if the buyer will be able to sell that boring photo for more than U.S. $ 4,000,000 sometime in the future. I like being called a PHOTOGRAPHER, and when someone calls me ARTIST, I think he's cursing me.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2014)

I had the same feeling a few years ago when I saw it. Apparently it's printed very large and laminated under plexiglass at least ;D

And, I had the same feeling when I saw this article on Luminous Landscape:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/kitchen_stories.shtml

Looking at the photos (ONLY), and not the woman or the context, my reaction is - are you serious??? That's Art??? 

Then I realized (yet again) that I am a photographer, NOT an artist. I shoot for the love of photography, and consider 90% or more of the "art" photography I've seen to be cliched crap. B&W, torn edges, crap out of focus, cheesy InstaPhotoShop filters - yep, that's "art" in today's world. Quality photos of unique subjects in beautiful light - nobody wants that.

***Stepping down from the bitter soap box ***


----------



## j0hannes (Feb 24, 2014)

I hope the picture you posted is not the original Gursky, because a huge portion of the lower right corner is very obviously clone-stamped.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 24, 2014)

Some years ago I (do not know why) I took a course named: Research-creative-in-art-technology. The teacher was graduated in fine arts, and had good skills in painting, drawing and art history, but knew nothing of photography or video (art technology?).

She is a fan of Duchamp, which I hate, and in a lesson I said that in my opinion: "Conceptual art is the refuge of the incompetent". She did not like what I said, but survived.

I learned about art history and joked acrylic painting and drawing. At the end of the course, I was photographing the work of colleagues in the exhibition, and the teacher asked my camera (Canon SLR + color negative film + Sigma 24-70mm). Then she asked me: "Where is the zoom?" I looked at her amazed and showed the rubber ring on the lens.

Some years later, my art teacher was arrested for murdering his sister stabbed in the back. I was playing with fire and did not know. Today I say: "Conceptual art is the refuge of the incompetent and crazy".


----------



## distant.star (Feb 24, 2014)

.
I don't know Gursky or anything about him (or her). (Oh, I don't know anything about "art" either.) But I'd bet my first coffee of the day that he has an MFA.

From all I've seen, if you have a camera and the MFA degree, you're an artist. If you only have the camera, you're just a photographer. Actual outcomes seem irrelevant.


----------



## starflux (Feb 24, 2014)

j0hannes said:


> I hope the picture you posted is not the original Gursky, because a huge portion of the lower right corner is very obviously clone-stamped.


Oh it is def. a bad photoshop job... see it in the original image... check out the large version at this link and you can easily see the same grass pattern repeated in lower right corner...

http://c4gallery.com/artist/database/andreas-gursky/andreas-gursky-the-rhein-II.jpg


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2014)

starflux said:


> j0hannes said:
> 
> 
> > I hope the picture you posted is not the original Gursky, because a huge portion of the lower right corner is very obviously clone-stamped.
> ...


...and yet he left some orange piece of garbage near the water and a set of stairs(?) on the opposite bank in the photo.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 24, 2014)

I guess if the purchaser is happy paying 4 mil for this, so be it. To each his own.


----------



## Policar (Feb 24, 2014)

Conceptually it's kind of boring (though at least it has a concept), but the technique and composition are better than anything I've seen posted on this forum... by far. Gursky's other work is cold, but for what it is... excellent. 

Price is insane, but diminishing returns when it comes to the best.

I don't see how outcome is irrelevant... Gursky (who's working on 8x10, btw, and whose skill as a photographer technically and artistically is incredible) does amazing work. Google image search his prints. They're cold, formal, technical, kind of banal in terms of subject, but for what they are they're beyond reproach. $4 million is ridiculous, though, but what isn't. Most expensive wine surely isn't worth it either.

Cloning out some stuff and not other stuff isn't about cleaning up the image, it's about the composition as a whole. I feel like people here are so caught up on technique (ironic since few of your can shoot 8x10) they ignore the concept and execution of an excellent photograph. This isn't my favorite Gursky and his style isn't my favorite style (again, it's cold) but the guy is a freaking master.


----------



## robinlamkie (Feb 24, 2014)

Not very relevant subject here. Did he use a Canon? Did the photographer set the price? Would you hire a good photographer who is a bad art critic?
No, No, Obviously


----------



## Vivid Color (Feb 24, 2014)

As an economist, I'd like to point out that there is the market price for something and then there is its non-market value. The terms price and value are often used interchangeably and for the most part, that's ok, but it can lead to confusion if people start equating price with value or worth. 

I'd also like to note that no one person/entity sets a price. They can offer something for sale at a price, and someone can accept at that price, but the price is "set" by the two parties agreeing to the price and, moreover, the cost of production and skill that went into the object being sold may have nothing to do with the price.


----------



## photonius (Feb 24, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> starflux said:
> 
> 
> > j0hannes said:
> ...



that's the art part....


----------



## troy19 (Feb 24, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Some years ago I (do not know why) I took a course named: Research-creative-in-art-technology. The teacher was graduated in fine arts, and had good skills in painting, drawing and art history, but knew nothing of photography or video (art technology?).
> 
> She is a fan of Duchamp, which I hate, and in a lesson I said that in my opinion: "Conceptual art is the refuge of the incompetent". She did not like what I said, but survived.
> 
> ...



Now that's a good story. You're a lucky man surviving. Guess her sister repeated what you said about conceptual art and that was too much for her ...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 24, 2014)

troy19 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Some years ago I (do not know why) I took a course named: Research-creative-in-art-technology. The teacher was graduated in fine arts, and had good skills in painting, drawing and art history, but knew nothing of photography or video (art technology?).
> ...


In fact, my art teacher never seemed violent, but she felt the need to "deconstruct" the aesthetic rules, and she considered that works technically well made​​, lose their artistic value. She hated photographs with correct focus, following the rule of thirds, proper exposure, and whatever all photographers consider desirable in a photograph. When I showed my photos with multiple exposure (done in-camera) she advised me to do a little something in Photoshop to make it obvious that I'm not Orthodox. :-X

As for the murder, she killed her sister, and was waiting for the police to arrive, sitting with knife in hand, to say that she would kill all the rest of the family because everyone chase her. Only things of "artist."


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 24, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Some years ago I (do not know why) I took a course named: Research-creative-in-art-technology. The teacher was graduated in fine arts, and had good skills in painting, drawing and art history, but knew nothing of photography or video (art technology?).
> 
> She is a fan of Duchamp, which I hate, and in a lesson I said that in my opinion: "Conceptual art is the refuge of the incompetent". She did not like what I said, but survived.
> 
> ...



I really appreciate the story, though I'm sorry to hear that things ended so poorly.

All I can add is that it takes a special kind of person to appreciate some things. I'm quite content to look at "fine art" (or "high art", expensive stuff in general) and see very little or nothing of value.
As is so common in life social status drives many people to do things that when viewed alone would never even remotely be considered reasonable, you can see that in everything from tennis shoes to the Gursky picture.


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Feb 24, 2014)

Caveat: Art is in the eye of the beholder, it's all subjective. 

However, this particular beholder doesn't get this one being worth $4mil. 

If I had taken it, I'd be proud of it for sure. Good balance, very nice composition. The clouds even cooperated by being parallel for him. Technically competent. I'd even post it to CR as one of my fave landscapes. 

However, I could go to the same place and take a picture 98% as good on any given cloudy day. I don't have an 8x10 camera, so I couldn't print it as nicely large, but is that what comprises art? 

It's not about gear IMO. It's about technique, patience, scouting and oftentimes, luck. I think alot of "art appreciation" is taking something from a famous artist and justifying it. That's why so much famous art really is stuff that could be seemingly reproduced by almost anyone. Most people not trying to justify a piece's fame are taking it at face value. It's pretty easy to spot a critic desperately trying to back into a complement for schlock a famous artist is throwing out there b/c his boat needs to be refinished or his wife wants a new kitchen. 

I think that any picture expensive should be a once in a lifetime event, beautifully captured by a photographer that knew exactly how to capture it. Those usually get Pulitzers, though, not $4mil  If I had the money, I'd pay for the one and only print of Vietnam/napalm girl, or Lee Harvey Oswald being shot. That photo of the Hindenburg.


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Feb 24, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I guess if the purchaser is happy paying 4 mil for this, so be it. To each his own.



Yea, looks like my bid of $12 was out bid. How disappointing. Not to say its not worth a few $ more but I don't have enough room for it anyway. 

Surprising so, I would imagine most of us have had art projects look like good...er bad, before we discarded them. Now, I'm feverishly looking back through my archives to see if HE copied ME ! ;D


----------



## anthonyd (Feb 24, 2014)

Policar said:


> ... ironic since few of your can shoot 8x10 ...



Hell, I didn't even know what "8x10" was before your post, but I still don't see how that helped him. This photograph is still awful (in my opinion of course).


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > ... ironic since few of your can shoot 8x10 ...
> ...


I could break out the 4X5, some scissors, and some glue and "cut and paste"......


----------



## anthonyd (Feb 24, 2014)

dawgfanjeff said:


> Caveat: Art is in the eye of the beholder, it's all subjective.
> ...



Actually, I have a personal anecdotal story on this.
When I was in high school I attended drawing classes at a private evening school. In my opinion I suck at drawing and everything I drew was awful. However, my parents kept everything, for some reason.
Years later, my sister married an architect who draws (and designs) amazing things. One day he went through my "paintings" and decided that he liked one of them so much, he put it on his living room wall. At first I thought he's messing with me, but after years and years of the painting remaining on his wall I have come to terms with the fact that we have very different ways of viewing the world.


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Feb 24, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> dawgfanjeff said:
> 
> 
> > Caveat: Art is in the eye of the beholder, it's all subjective.
> ...


Your brother in law probably thinks his "amazing" things are totally banal, derivative junk!

I think we have all had that experience of a wife or friend go through our pictures and pick out a bunch of favorites that we could have easily deleted. I even tell them why it's no good. Comp is junk, it would take forever to clone out that stop sign...They find something in it I didn't, even though I took it. I have gone mining through old photos and even disagreed with my own previous choices a few times


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2014)

dawgfanjeff said:


> However, I could go to the same place and take a picture 98% as good on any given cloudy day. I don't have an 8x10 camera, so I couldn't print it as nicely large, but is that what comprises art?


You don't need a massive camera.... You can take multiple pictures and stitch them together....image sizes have gone over 100 gigapixels....

The largest one I have done (so far) was 110,000 by 40,000 pixels.... 12 rows of photos and 36 per row....if you printed it at 300dpi you would have a 30 foot by 11 foot print...


----------



## Policar (Feb 24, 2014)

It might help putting it in the context of his other stuff:

http://c4gallery.com/artist/database/andreas-gursky/gursky-paris-montparnasse-large-print.jpg

http://publicdelivery.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Andreas-Gursky-Kamiokande-2007.jpg

The simplicity of the composition is the entire point, almost like a Mondrian but with textures as well as colors. (Not a big Mondrian fan, but I am a Pollock fan!)

As I said, I'm not a huge fan of Gursky because his work is kind of distant and stately (and this particular print just looks like any other expertly composed landscape to some extent; the subject is fairly banal), but I do think he's an unmistakable genius at what he does and that if you're not seeing it, the problem isn't with him.

Also, this is a HUGE print. Most good 8x10 photography is really simple, cold, and formal, because the textures become overwhelming at large sizes. What looks good on 500px is, as regards composition, completely different from what looks good printed 80X100 inches. The popular stuff on 500px is generally garbage.

I recently saw some work from this photographer ( http://www.lauramcphee.com/ronr.php ) printed wall-sized and was blown away. The thumbnails look like nothing special (still very good, as is the print in question here). What looks good in one format does not always translate to another. Guernica does little for me in thumbnail, but is overwhelming full-sized. I'm sure printed full-size this photo is incredible.

Also, if you can take a photo 98% this good on any given day, move into fine art, because you are among the very top of the very elite. And if you think 8x10 is just about resolution, keep on stitching.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 24, 2014)

Policar said:


> I do think he's an unmistakable genius at what he does and that if you're not seeing it, the problem isn't with him.



So if some no name took this picture, you would recognize the "unmistakable genius" in it? I don't believe that in the least.

Just recently there was some "famous" artist (sorry, don't remember the name) who's paintings sell for big bucks set up shop in central park and was selling his stuff for $50, and as I recall, only sold a single piece. Without some art curator telling them it was so amazing and worth a fortune, no one cared.


----------



## Policar (Feb 24, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > I do think he's an unmistakable genius at what he does and that if you're not seeing it, the problem isn't with him.
> ...



I would recognize that it's an excellent photograph, but nothing more. Again, it's not my favorite photo of his by any means, but I do think it's better than any photograph I've seen posted here, for instance.

If I saw his body of work I'd recognize it as unmistakably brilliant, as I think most anyone would. And "genius" I use loosely; I'd call Spielberg and Fincher and Scorsese and the best DPs (Deakins, Richardson), etc. visual geniuses even though they've produced a ton of garbage. I'm generous with the label, but I do think it's easy to recognize a singular vision and articulate articulation of it and it's better to praise than tear down great work within a medium, even if the genre isn't your favorite. I do think the subject here is pretty banal and the execution (as regards composition) so perfect that it's almost boring. Not my favorite photo of his.

There are artists that are highly successful that I just don't get. Again, Mondrian I don't really get.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 24, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > I do think he's an unmistakable genius at what he does and that if you're not seeing it, the problem isn't with him.
> ...


When I hear the phrase "unmistakable genius" I think of Beethoven, Mozart, or Jimi Hendrix, they cause chills in those who hear their works. In visual arts, I think of Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci, who let their spectators speechless. In photography, a technically perfect performance is not enough to be "unmistakable genius." It is essential that a subject interest and hold the attention of the viewer. Thus, some of the most important photographs of humanity are NOT technically clean, but your content is impressive and makes you think. I'll add a little known photographer that I consider great.
Valério Vieira, did the work "Os Trinta Valérios" in 1901. In this assembly, the very Valerius appears thirty times in his brilliant work.





"Os Trinta Valérios" by Valério Vieira 1901


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 24, 2014)

Jeffbridge said:


> What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?



Not a damned thing, that's what. If I shot that photograph I couldn't sell it for 1 cent...


----------



## eml58 (Feb 25, 2014)

It's an interesting discussion, and it's most interesting to see how varied opinions are regards this subject of "art", and of course all are valid.

From my own perspective I'de like to able to produce something half as boring and lacking in detail as Gursky's image, and sell it for $40, I tip my hat to Gursky for his ability not as a Photographer, he's not, not as an "artist", he's not (in my opinion people), but as a business man, he has few to challenge him in this particular area.

My own abilities as an "artist" run to the odd (maybe more than the odd) out of focus image, I sometimes sit and look at these images and after a reasonable amount of expensive wine (someone earlier denigrated expensive wine, but it has it's uses & clearly the guy that paid 4 mill for gursky's image would agree with me), I start to see a potential piece of art, at some point, generally towards the bottom of the bottle of expensive wine, just before opening the second, I am convinced enough that I print the "piece of art" and show it to my Family for their appreciation.

It's the shuffling feet, sidewise glances of abject pity, the total silence that tend to give them away, bloody art critiques, world's full of them.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 25, 2014)

.
Well, there are different ways of getting to $4 mil.

My plan is to sell 4 million pictures for a dollar each.


----------



## EdB (Feb 25, 2014)

Art, like any other object for sale, is all about marketing.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 25, 2014)

Policar said:


> I would recognize that it's an excellent photograph, but nothing more.



Ok, let's forego your comments on how he is an 'unmistakeable genius', I wouldn't get it if you knocked me on my head with that genius! 
(Mind you, the term is technically wrong, since so many of us right here have cheerfully made the 'mistake' of not understanding that 'genius')
Let me ask a simpler question:
Why is this an excellent photograph?- please explain it as you see it. Please avoid esoteric terms like cold, banal, etc. or terms like composition and texture without explaining why that is good. I am not asking about the 'concept' in it. Just why this is an excellent photograph.
Thanks.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 25, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > I would recognize that it's an excellent photograph, but nothing more.
> ...



Good points and reframing of the question or subject.

I had thought the most expensive photograph ever sold, was an original print by (I'm sure most of you know artist and title...I don't care all that much at this moment)...the "moonlight in pond" or whatever it was.

I fail to see how an original, likely historically significant work done by an early era photographer, could sell for less than the piece of crap that this thread is about.

For that matter, haven't any of Ansel Adams' prints sold for more than $4 million? Or if not, is it because museums have snapped the best ones up and got away with not having to pay anything for them?

I know our local museum has 4 prints of Adams', they are on the small side. The lady that is the wife of the owner of two of them, saw my work and said her husband would like it. Of course she didn't buy any of my prints. I guess if I had put a large price tag on them, she would have taken me more seriously. But frankly I don't care, because people like that don't know the value of things in general. It's a bit like trying to sell a work of art to the queen of England or something...


----------



## x-vision (Feb 25, 2014)

Jeffbridge said:


> What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?



It's valuable because it's a piece of (art) history. 


For the same reason, this Jasper Johns painting has sold for $110 million: 







Source: http://www.theartwolf.com/10_expensive.htm


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 25, 2014)

I prefer this.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 25, 2014)

I think there is the whole, art is in the eye of the beholder argument - but - there is also the good old, name = prestige. Chances are all of us here Could take that shot, but, would any of us even think of consider showing it that large? image: --- that's pretty huge! 73 x 143 in ---6 feet by close to 12 feet...huge. Gursky can and did do that because he has both skill and the name and of course the lab and his own giant printer too. 

It's sad because I see so many artists making such amazing things...selling them for $100 a pop, then see this---yeah gursky's is huge but...it's 4 million not because of the content ---

Face the facts - it's 4 million because it's a gursky. Same shot printed to same size by unknown fill in the blank artist - well, your talking a few grand at most because - unkonw fill in the blank artist isn't known, has no acclaim. Where did this thing sell, christies, and yeah, they cater to the rich, the rich want bragging rights, they want that piece on the wall that will be the talk of the next cocktail party (mind you, the cost of the cocktail party for this rich guy alone is probably more than the unkown artist would would get for his print) ---ohhh it's a such and such...

Sorry if that ruffles feathers, but it's true...


----------



## emag (Feb 25, 2014)

I freely admit I just usually don't appreciate 'fine art'. Particularly anything that's supposed to be 'edgy' and 'provocative'.

Ansel Adams - I like
The Pond - I like it
Dead troops talk - like it also

Cindy Sherman - I'm sure she's well regarded by many. Doesn't do a thing for me. Any time I see "Self portrait of the artist" I'm pretty sure it's crap, I'd rather see a well-done "Dogs playing poker" or Velvet Elvis. That includes Van Gogh. Sole exception (for me) M. C. Escher with the reflecting ball. Just my $.02, and worth as much.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Then I realized (yet again) that I am a photographer, NOT an artist. I shoot for the love of photography, and consider 90% or more of the "art" photography I've seen to be cliched crap. B&W, torn edges, crap out of focus, cheesy InstaPhotoShop filters - yep, that's "art" in today's world. Quality photos of unique subjects in beautiful light - nobody wants that.
> 
> ***Stepping down from the bitter soap box ***



LoL well put, I am of the exact same opinion


----------



## NWPhil (Feb 25, 2014)

all this reminds me of that story...
about that millionaire guy, with his best-seller book "how to become a millionaire" - guess how he did it!

spoiler hint: selling a book


----------



## eml58 (Feb 25, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> Well, there are different ways of getting to $4 mil.
> 
> My plan is to sell 4 million pictures for a dollar each.



I think that's an exemplary attitude, and each Image you sell for a dollar is likely to be better than the one we are discussing.


----------



## eyeland (Feb 25, 2014)

Granted, at 4 mill it seems overpriced, but then again, so are Iphones and so many other polished turds.. At least no slave labor was utilized (unless it was clone-stamped at foxcon  )
This seems to be a trend that has propagated throughout the market driven society and there is hardly anything new about that.. I honestly find it more baffling that people are complaining about a specific "work of art" instead of questioning the capitalistic foundation upon which these phenomena rely... 
As for specific works of art (or other things sold at "unfair" prices), the object/idea/piece can seem banal and obvious, especially in retrospect. 
As a kid, when presented with an "obvious" invention (eg. the wheel, screw-on lids, the cork screw in lack of better examples) or an abstract work of art - all being of the nature that seemingly required no virtuoso/artisan skill-set, I would usually state: "I could have easily done that", to which my mother would reply: "I am sure that you _could_ have done it, but s/he actually _did _it"
Sometimes creative brilliance is just this: To somehow create something that, in spite of being obvious and banal, invokes some sense of novelty by the fact that no-one _actually_ thought to do it in this or that way before.
Personally, I think that this is a very interesting and relevant aspect of creative craftsmanship, one that I face everytime I pick up my camera. With the danger of going off topic, I find that these matters touch upon the very temporal nature of the relation between our reflective self-understanding and our somewhat immediate forward momentum. To paraphrase Kierkegaard, "Life is lived forwards, but understood backwards."
This got to be a lenghty reply, perhaps I should just have said something along the lines of "hindsight is 20/20"...


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 25, 2014)

Because Gursky has taken a deliberate approach to become a collectable photographer. You have to realise that it has only been in the last 10 years that his photos have sold for significant sums (with massive increases over the last five years). Prior to that, he was just like many others, trying desperately to get their work exhibited. But once you have serious galleries highlighting and buying your work on a regular basis, people pay attention.

He has also been smart with limiting the number of prints made. According to Wikipedia he generally only sells six copies.

And his photos are good. At least I like them.

I don't know how serious art collectors think, but Rhein II is unlike most of his other work. Generally, his photos are very busy, with a lot of people, objects, windows, items, activity etc. The contrast between his better known photos and Rhein II gives it a special significance. I suspect that this is what makes it a more valuable photo.

Why don't your photos sell for $4m? The short answer is that they probably could. You just need to spend the next twenty years dedicating yourself to building up your name and reputation in a very smart, business-like way.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 25, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I think there is the whole, art is in the eye of the beholder argument - but - there is also the good old, name = prestige. Chances are all of us here Could take that shot, but, would any of us even think of consider showing it that large? image: --- that's pretty huge! 73 x 143 in ---6 feet by close to 12 feet...huge. Gursky can and did do that because he has both skill and the name and of course the lab and his own giant printer too.
> 
> It's sad because I see so many artists making such amazing things...selling them for $100 a pop, then see this---yeah gursky's is huge but...it's 4 million not because of the content ---
> 
> ...



So in your opinion, spending $4 million to buy this piece, is a wise investment? Somehow, decades from now, it will be worth several times that much (even adjusted for inflation)? In other words, what you're saying, is that Gursky as an artist, is at the same level or above, as Ansel Adams, or Picasso. I submit that he is not, and thus it's a bad investment.


----------



## koolman (Feb 25, 2014)

Jeffbridge said:


> What makes this photograph worth $4,338,500 (other than the obvious fact someone was prepared to pay that amount for it)?



Alas this is the world we live in. Its all about the packaging and the posture. The essence is long gone.

What attracts people to this photo has nothing to do with photography. It has to do with other peripherals.


----------



## pedroesteban (Feb 25, 2014)

I think that most people here are missing the fact that this is a piece of digital art: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

It is quite different to evaluate the significance of this as an important work of art and to evaluate the significance this as a technically challenging photograph / photoshop job.


----------



## Policar (Feb 25, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > I would recognize that it's an excellent photograph, but nothing more.
> ...



It's also possible everyone here has no taste. Most casual non-photographers could identify what's right with Gursky's work (as a whole, not just this one odd photograph of his) seeing it in a gallery or at least simply understand what he's up to, but we're too obsessed with MTF and clone tools. 

I could ask you to describe why Beethoven's 9th is great without using words like "melodious" "beautiful" or discussing texture and composition... Give it a go. You can instantly recognize that it's great, so describe it (don't do any research first, either!) and convince me. Let's say I prefer Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus because it has more emotion and lyrics. Convince me otherwise.

See why you put me in a tough spot? But I'll try:

Again, this isn't my favorite photograph of his, but why it's good or at least interesting is fairly simple to articulate. Gursky's work is all very cold and formal... He rarely has one identifiable person in his frame, and when he does have one that person is at a distance. His photographs are all about textures found in large, manmade spaces, and he often photographs with long lenses from a distance with a near-orthographic/planometric feel or from heights not normally accessible to people (helicopters, etc.) and then composes extremely cleanly and prints huge. The universe feels very disorganized at normal viewing perspectives and most photos here are chaotic or sloppy. His photographs have ultra-simple compositions (sometimes as simple as one texture) and within those compositions blocks of texture and gradation that are only really appreciable at wall-sized prints... reminds me of Pollock a bit, order in chaos. Also reminds me of one of my friends, a brilliant landscape photographer (who is much more fun, and shoots Canon!): http://www.alexmaclean.com

Seeing the everyday world appear so flat and composed and organized and distant is unnerving... usually it only appears that way very small (molecular structure, crystal structure) or large (solar systems, etc.) and seeing that geometry and distance applied to banal man-made objects gives this god's-eye-view perspective that's cold and unnerving and overwhelming and (particularly when these prints are big) makes the subject feel small and humanity small and irrelevant somehow. His photos are about organizing the modern world from a distanced, symmetrical, omniscient perspective that is not sympathetic to its subjects, who are rendered irrelevant relative to the texture they fall into... really god's eye view stuff. And you see it and are overwhelmed by the symmetry and coldness of his take on humanity and the modern day, particularly when you see a big print... it's overwhelming. Almost cosmic, being faced with something so big and cold and composed that makes you feel so small in comparison. See it printed large!

This photo is so extreme in its style... the subject matter so banal, but the composition so perfect (the bars are balanced exquisitely for color, texture, shade, etc. and weighted perfectly; if you deny this you have a horrible eye for composition). Say what you will but this is a ridiculously good composition, so good it's almost, well... boring. It's an everyday view of a familiar subject seen with godlike distance and symmetry. That's it. Pretty simple stuff and to me not as interesting as his other work. Almost a parody of Gursky it's so extreme, probably why it sold for so much.

The guy comes across as a cold bastard. He listens to techno, probably watches David Fincher. If that coldness and order appeals to you, then his work is amazing. Printed large, it makes you feel insignificant as though faced with an overwhelmingly huge god's-eye-view. A little bit preachy, a little bit pretentious, but expertly composed and (as seen printed full-sized on a wall) even viscerally breathtaking. Gursky's work reminds me of Zodiac or Aphex Twin (circa Drukqs) or something. Cold, clinical, formal, but lacking in humanity. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=gursky&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aqoMU5OBJbOQyQGIsICoAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ

I prefer photography with a human element to it, but Gursky does something no one else is doing or even successfully emulating. Guy's great.


----------



## Policar (Feb 25, 2014)

Just look at this:

http://www.artnet.com/artwork/426102827/424045384/andreas-gursky-love-parade.html

Who could have a colder eye toward a subject? It's all texture and composition and coldness and distance.

Who could make a colder photo called Love Parade? It's beautiful, too, but there's nothing human about it to the extent that the subject is almost ironic, or maybe it's about a beauty that transcends the human and concerns humanity more broadly.


----------



## Policar (Feb 25, 2014)

http://photographicgenius.tumblr.com/image/6074418057

Same idea.


----------



## notapro (Feb 25, 2014)

Pedroesteban mentions a cardinal point in this thread. It is helpful to note that photography and art are not synonymous any more than painting and art are synonymous. Painting and photography are among the media from which artists may choose to create their work, and painters and photographers as painters and photographers are not the same necessarily as artists whose media are painting and photography.

I think distant.star (if I have the name correct) posted a relevant point early in this thread about having a an M.F.A. and a camera as opposed to having a camera without the degree. In the former instance, one could self-identify as an artist. In the latter, self-identification would be "just" as a photographer.

I would love to expand more, though some of what I might write would derive from and be rooted in what I wrote here in a thread a while back:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15734.msg288202#msg288202

I will add that, whether "just a photographer" (i.e., a self-identified non-artist) finds merit-technical or otherwise--in a photograph, whether "just a photographer" finds value in a photograph, or whether the same person derives pleasure from a photograph are not, per se, necessary, essential, or sufficient to the matter of status, classification, or appreciation (for example) of a photograph as an artwork.

My post here is severely limited (I need to get out of here and go to work!), but in conjuntion with the matter presented in the cited thread, it may be understandable why photographs as artworks may evoke incredulous reactions from members of the general public or society at large.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 25, 2014)

Policar said:


> I could ask you to describe why Beethoven's 9th is great without using words like "melodious" "beautiful" or discussing texture and composition... Give it a go. You can instantly recognize that it's great, so describe it (don't do any research first, either!) and convince me. Let's say I prefer Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus because it has more emotion and lyrics. Convince me otherwise.



Well, I'm not religious, but I certainly recognize the emotions in the lyrical sections of Beethoven's 9th...


----------



## Policar (Feb 25, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > I could ask you to describe why Beethoven's 9th is great without using words like "melodious" "beautiful" or discussing texture and composition... Give it a go. You can instantly recognize that it's great, so describe it (don't do any research first, either!) and convince me. Let's say I prefer Wrecking Ball by Miley Cyrus because it has more emotion and lyrics. Convince me otherwise.
> ...



Well, there's a convincing argument. ???


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 25, 2014)

Policar said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



It wasn't meant to be.

I'm just pointing out (in perhaps an obnoxious way) that Beethoven's 9th does in fact have emotionally-charged lyrics (not primarily penned by Beethoven, but the same may the the case for Miley), so it may not be the best sample for your argument.


----------



## Policar (Feb 25, 2014)

Fair enough.

I guess I'm just saying... it's easy to appreciate something that's very good (when presented with it in a proper context; this photo is pretty inferior in thumbnail and not in a gallery printed huge) but it's difficult to articulate convincingly why it's good. "Emotion and lyrics" is my example of a bad description that could very well be honest...


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 25, 2014)

Many of his contemporaries and most of the critics disliked Beethoven and his work. Yet time has an interesting way of identifying quality and greatness. Perhaps our great-great-great-great-grandchildren will look upon Miley Cyrus in the same way? But personally, I think that her reputation will pale in comparison to her dad's. I'm certain "Acky Breaky Heart" will be considered the peak of late 20th century music.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 25, 2014)

Most people who aren't familiar with the artist don't get the concept. I don't see it and come away with the same feelings of a bleak, sterile god perspective of the world that you do. It may be telling that the photo doesn't speak for itself (I.e. context partially drives your reaction). Or not. I dunno, and it doesn't really matter.

It really does come down to taste. To me, a good photograph need to be interesting to look at. Interest can come from the subject itself or it can come from how a subject is portrayed (composed). The subject is uninteresting, and the composition doesn't add anything to me. Perhaps that is because I don't know what it really looks like and thus can't recognize anything particularly unique about how the scene is portrayed.

Shrug. If someone wants to pay 4million for it, have at it; it's no skin off my back.


----------



## Policar (Feb 25, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Most people who aren't familiar with the artist don't get the concept. I don't see it and come away with the same feelings of a bleak, sterile god perspective of the world that you do. It may be telling that the photo doesn't speak for itself (I.e. context partially drives your reaction). Or not. I dunno, and it doesn't really matter.
> 
> It really does come down to taste. To me, a good photograph need to be interesting to look at. Interest can come from the subject itself or it can come from how a subject is portrayed (composed). The subject is uninteresting, and the composition doesn't add anything to me. Perhaps that is because I don't know what it really looks like and thus can't recognize anything particularly unique about how the scene is portrayed.
> 
> Shrug. If someone wants to pay 4million for it, have at it; it's no skin off my back.



I think it's one of his less interesting photographs, too, but it's paradoxically interesting among his photographs for being the most extreme in terms of coldness and the banality of the subject. I don't think you need a lot of backstory to "get it" though. It's the Rhine on a cloudy day presented as flatly as possible. Stand up next to a full-size print and you'll feel like you're seeing a familiar, boring sight, only rendered completely symmetrical and cold (and actually very beautiful in an odd way). So the subject isn't that interesting, but to me the composition (which is exquisite, imo) is, almost because it's so composed and flat. And seeing something very "everyday" but altered in terms of presentation is striking and uncanny. There's something to this photo, but the thumbnails do it no justice! 

That said, these are much more interesting to me:

http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/gursky_2-web.jpg

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~squires/gursky/pics/gursky_chicago.jpg

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~squires/gursky/pics/gursky_99cent.jpg

http://agonistica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/gursky1.jpg

And, again, none are that interesting except when printed HUGE.

I would have chosen a different print, too! But the guy is the real deal and I still think this is a great photograph, just not like... the best. I do have an immediate emotional/intellectual reaction to it, though. It's not of overwhelming beauty, but I think it communicates what it needs to communicate well, and I do think it's very beautiful in a way... certainly more beautiful than anything I've seen on here, on flickr, etc.


----------



## robinlamkie (Feb 25, 2014)

I first became aware of Gursky seeing his 99cent photo. 

It added depth when I read that he studied with Bernd & Hilla Becher whose photos have influenced my photography and art appreciation. 

http://pitchdesignunion.com/2009/10/bernd-hilla-becher/


----------



## distant.star (Feb 25, 2014)

.
I know I can't speak for everyone, but I'd hope most folks here would join me in thanking Policar. I appreciate the great insights into photography as art.

Having spent time in galleries looking at photographs that have been blessed as "art," I know I don't know enough to get it. I've never studied art so the deficiency is clearly mine. But I do appreciate when someone knowledgeable takes the time to explain what forms a foundation of art in a photograph.

I also know enough about the history of photography to know it was never taken seriously until it was finally embraced by the art community.

While I'm just a photographer I really am trying to create my own concept of art in this world.

Thanks, Policar!


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 25, 2014)

Policar said:


> I think it's one of his less interesting photographs, too, but it's paradoxically interesting among his photographs for being the most extreme in terms of coldness and the banality of the subject. I don't think you need a lot of backstory to "get it" though. It's the Rhine on a cloudy day presented as flatly as possible. Stand up next to a full-size print and you'll feel like you're seeing a familiar, boring sight, only rendered completely symmetrical and cold (and actually very beautiful in an odd way). So the subject isn't that interesting, but to me the composition (which is exquisite, imo) is, almost because it's so composed and flat. And seeing something very "everyday" but altered in terms of presentation is striking and uncanny. There's something to this photo, but the thumbnails do it no justice!


+1

I like it... not $5,000,000 worth, but I do like it....


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is the whole, art is in the eye of the beholder argument - but - there is also the good old, name = prestige. Chances are all of us here Could take that shot, but, would any of us even think of consider showing it that large? image: --- that's pretty huge! 73 x 143 in ---6 feet by close to 12 feet...huge. Gursky can and did do that because he has both skill and the name and of course the lab and his own giant printer too.
> ...



that part is also eye of the beholder - at that level, what is seen as "value" is not what we see. If you were andy warhol, a stained napkin doodle is worth 30K. 

gursky is lucky, he's alive and selling this for 4 mil. Many artists have to wait till their dead to sell at at level


----------



## Policar (Feb 25, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> While I'm just a photographer I really am trying to create my own concept of art in this world.



So is Gursky...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Good to see we can agree on something again haha...(I don't like to type "lol" because well, it's very 2000's and not "twenty-teens"...)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 26, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> I know I can't speak for everyone, but I'd hope most folks here would join me in thanking Policar. I appreciate the great insights into photography as art.



Yep. For my dollar (tongue in cheek), this discussion is more interesting than the picture being discussed 

Rather than the music analogy, I'll liken it (the print) to another printed medium. 

It's hard to freehand a square. You may make something look fairly square, but getting perpendicular corners with straight equal length sides is impossible. A good draftsman likely employs technique that will allow him to get closer to square than I. And size matters. You'll get a better square that's 1mm on the side than one that's 100mm. 1 meter on the side? Forget about it. So, while an expert freehanding a 1m square may have great execution, at the end of the day, he produces a square on a piece of paper. Well done, but patently uninteresting.

Gursky clearly had a concept, and he executed it well (with perhaps the exception of sloppy duplication). However, it's very boring to look at.





Policar said:


> And, again, none are that interesting except when printed HUGE.



http://www.its.caltech.edu/~squires/gursky/pics/gursky_chicago.jpg

That one is.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 26, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> http://www.its.caltech.edu/~squires/gursky/pics/gursky_chicago.jpg
> 
> That one is.



Eye of the beholder, that one looks mundane to me also. I think this thread should end soon, it's only feeding Gursky's already inflated ego and wallet.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 26, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Somehow I seriously doubt that Miley's output will be revered next month, much less in a few decades or 100's of years. I give the Beatles and Stone's output much more of a chance...hell, those have passed the 50yr mark and still get airplay and fairly high sales.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2014)

cayenne said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Policar said:
> ...



I saw the Stones in October 1989, I was younger then. I liked it a lot. My favorite song from the live performance, was "Undercover". The drum riffs were so punchy and the light show was incredible (and I was at the other end of a football stadium from the stage!). Saw Robert Plant with his band in '90...he was younger then than I am now...kind of freaky! 

I agree with your assessment of Mizz Cyrus, as I suspect 99% of the people on this forum over say age 35 might also agree. However, if I had started discussing music in this thread, then all of a sudden people would be saying "sorry we got off topic", "not trying to hijack the thread", "sorry we discussed anything besides the precious Gursky"...etc etc...so I'm glad nobody has called you out on it! I will refrain from apologizing for it, myself!

It's a shame that popular music (especially in the USA) is what it is now. Some of it is ok, but most of it isn't. I think history will show that "Jay Z's" influence on popular music, was more destructive than anyone would suspect now. I also think that it won't take long before people realize that Katie Perry is shrill, can't sing...and has only had maybe two songs that are mediocre, the rest stinkers. Did you see her performance on the Beatles' 50th reunion? I mean...wow she was so flat and off key! Never heard one correct note. Whether that's her style or not, it stinks. Covering that song like that, wouldn't have gotten her more than 3 seconds on an initial home town meet and greet test on American Idol...not that this means all that much either. At least the contestants pretend to try to hit the correct notes (in between screaming their heads off...the louder the better!...and to music they never heard of before 5 minutes pre-performance.) Both Perry and someone like Carrie Underwood, get by on their sex appeal alone, definitely not their talent.

I am pleased that heavy metal music is so popular with young people today, in Europe and South America! I hope I live long enough to see it become popular with teenagers again here! Looks like it will never happen, though.

Music should involve the "artist" both writing their own music, and playing it on some sort of instrument, and actually singing and hitting notes without "autotune". Otherwise it's not music, it's hollow garbage.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 27, 2014)

NSFW

The question: "Bad Photography becomes salable art" can apply to music. Never sold as much bad music sells nowadays. It is also a fact that never did so much bad photography as today. The internet is full of bad photos . But no one can force me to buy a photography that I do not like , and no one can force me to agree that a photo is good just because it was sold for a fortune.

The problem is that the "average taste" is undemanding when it comes to CONTENTS. A photo cell can be good if the topic is interesting and the achievement is well taken. Similarly, a photograph of medium-format camera can be uninteresting (even if technically perfect) for lack of subject content.

I'm sure Billie Holiday would not need to make a music video like Miley Cyrus (nude in a wrecking ball) because the music was enough to hold the attention. I also think that Cartier Bresson did not need to use the perfect technique to mask the lack of content in your photographs. But, who said the work of Miley Cyrus is useless?  Preferably with the sound off. :-X
NSFW






Miley Cyrus, and the "art" of present time.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The question : "Bad Photography becomes salable art " can apply to music. Never sold as much bad music sells nowadays. It is also a fact that never did so much bad photography as today. The internet is full of bad photos . But no one can force me to buy a stock that I do not like , and no one can force me to agree that a photo is good just because it was sold for a fortune .
> 
> The problem is that the "average taste" is undemanding when it comes to CONTENTS . A photo cell can be good if the theme is interressante and achievement is well taken . Similarly , a photograph of medium format camera can be uninteresting ( even if technically perfect ) for lack of subject content .
> 
> I'm sure Billie Holiday would not need to make a music video like Miley Cyrus ( nude in a wrecking ball ) because the music was enough to hold the attention . Tanbem think Cartier - Bresson would not need to use the perfect technique to mask the lack of content in your photographs .



Well said. Billie Holiday had a magical voice and talent. Unfortunately our culture today celebrates the mundane and the vulgar. It celebrates the idiocy of youth. 

Do you own any Tesla stock, out of curiousity? I have strong opinions about Elon Musk...haha. I've never bought that stock, but am beginning to wonder if it isn't worth trading after all. That way I too, like Elon, can profit off the taxpayers' backs.


----------



## thepancakeman (Feb 27, 2014)

Please update this thread as NSFW or remove the wrecking ball photo.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > The question : "Bad Photography becomes salable art " can apply to music. Never sold as much bad music sells nowadays. It is also a fact that never did so much bad photography as today. The internet is full of bad photos . But no one can force me to buy a stock that I do not like , and no one can force me to agree that a photo is good just because it was sold for a fortune .
> ...



I think a lot of this is fallout from MTV of the 80's.

I mean, yes..it did seem to save rock music, but it also propogated that only GOOD LOOKING folks are to be promoted to be todays music stars...not talent.

Many of my favorite groups of the past were butt-ugly, but you didn't see them that often, you heard them and learned to love quality songs/albums they put out. 

And also, there is the proliferation of music today listened to on really low quality systems...ipods with horrible earbuds (most people don't replace them with quality ones), or now, the Beats headphones, that are just awful middle of the road bad bass, with no real dynamics. This has all led to the compression wars that have killed dynamic range on music in order to just make it louder sounding. I grates on the ears....and it has affected even old recordings when remastered.

Wow, ok, I'm getting way off photography...but still, I still amaze kids that come by and hear what a REAL high end stereo system can sounds like...tube SET amps running Klipschorn speakers. http://www.klipsch.com/klipschorn-floorstanding-speaker
Now that is a pleasing system to listen to..while post processing images.

There...I brought it back to photography!! 


cayenne


----------



## Policar (Feb 27, 2014)

cayenne said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



I actually think Wrecking Ball is a very good pop song, but I agree music has gone downhill.

The kinds of rock bands that are talented and clever enough to write raw, gutsy music (like the Stones or Nirvana or even the Pumpkins or Pixies more recently) are now for whatever reason doing esoteric music that’s too cold and intellectual and difficult to access. And the emotional immediacy isn’t there; it’s just very formal and cold and you need to think about it to appreciate it. 

I like the immediacy of Miley or Britney Spears, but the music is written by committee and takes no risks whatsoever. It’s garbage, but some of it is good, well-crafted garbage...

The loudness wars… that’s another issue. Speakers are so bad music needs to be compressed to fit into a tiny dynamic range. Reminds me of HDR, actually, which I think is hideous and only looks good on a small iPhone screen or something (never printed large) and is why I like these 8x10 photos.

That said, Gursky to me falls into the visual camp that’s analogous to bands that are talented musicians but too distant and self-aware to make anything raw. Which is why this photo is so silly in many respects. And why high art is so silly (it’s too intellectual). But I do think a lot of his work is good, and prefer this photo to any HDR. (There is some good commercial photography, too, but most of it is in print… actual commercials. A lot of middlebow “art” is horrible. Stuck in Customs is the worst photography I’ve ever seen. It's like Kinkade's paintings. I’m sorry to be a snob, but this stuff is the worst of both worlds. There has been good stuff that occupies this space, and it's the best stuff… Beatles, Spielberg, etc.)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 27, 2014)

thepancakeman said:


> Please update this thread as NSFW or remove the wrecking ball photo.


As English is not my native language, I ask: What is NSFW?


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 27, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > Please update this thread as NSFW or remove the wrecking ball photo.
> ...


*N*ot *S*afe *f*or *W*ork


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2014)

cayenne said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...



That's a superb speaker! I've owned some highend stuff as well. Still have a Rogue 88 tube amp, sold my bottlehead Paramour 2A3 monoblock kits to a cousin. Haven't heard if he's built them. We should talk audio sometime!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2014)

Policar said:


> I actually think Wrecking Ball is a very good pop song, but I agree music has gone downhill.
> 
> The bands that are talented and clever enough to write raw, gutsy music (like the Stones or Nirvana or even the Pumpkins or Pixies more recently) are now for whatever reason doing esoteric music that’s too cold and intellectual and difficult to access. And the emotional immediacy isn’t there; it’s just very formal and cold and you need to think about it to appreciate it.
> 
> ...



I honestly think Miley is someone who can only be appreciated by people near her age, who haven't lived through when music meant more, concerts meant more, and it wasn't all promoted and pigeonholed to where it had to either be idiot "hip hop pop", just "hip hop", "rap", or "country". 

Rock is dead, because that's how the industry wants it. If they promoted it, kids today would love it. Just ask what type of music most kids in Northern and central Europe...and South America like. Bands like Iron Maiden couldn't tour the way they have in these places, if the youth didn't love them.

I also disagree that MTV kept rock music alive. The fans kept it alive IN SPITE OF MTV. MTV really promoted "new wave" and top 40 pop music such as Madonna and Boy George ("Culture Club"), more than "rock" acts of the time. It wasn't until the late 80's that "hair metal" became the rage. And plaid shirts, saggy pants, the whole Seattle cultural takeover, was a direct reaction by the music industry, to find something that was the opposite of hair metal, but that was still "rock". After a time they needed to modify it further, so was born "heavy industrial"...but then in the late '90's, there was a brief European influence of "techno pop", because people got tired of angry plaid wearing Seattle artists whose daddies died when they were age 13...then when they discovered Neil Young could be their surrogate daddy, a lot of their fans stopped thinking of them as relevant. 

In the 1980's, we would have never liked the type of music that most kids like today. We still like the music from that era, when our favorite bands tour, we attend in droves. Some of today's youth also attend, even without their parents. I've seen them. U2 set the record for highest grossing, and longest single tour, with "360" (2009 to 2011). It also cost the most to produce. Having seen it twice, I feel it was worth it. But those counted toward the nearly 50 large concerts I've attended in my life.

In 2000, for KISS's "farewell tour" of that time, they actually sold more tickets than Britney Spears (and that was at Spears' peak). Her tour however, grossed more money, because ticket prices were jacked up a lot for her, and those fans paid. But 2000, was 24 years after KISS was at their peak (1976).

24 years from now, will Cyrus, or Spears (in her case 10 years from now...and pathetically she's Cyrus' "idol")...be able to tour and sell more tickets than whatever the current popular act is of that time? Nope...no way. Why? I say because their "fans" are not fans of them or their music, only of a culture of idiocy promoted by people who don't care a whit about artistry. 

Music today, is simply a much smaller industry than before Napster and MP3 music sharing took off (and eventually before Apple's iPod took over). The profit margin is a lot lower, because of downloadable music. So the industry, promotes a few acts, to a degree...but ignores the rest. And the music companies, apparently hate rock music. That's why it's not promoted...not because the artists are too esoteric. There are plenty of local rock bands in every city that are good enough to have made the big time (at least one from each city I would guess), were they in a different era in time.

None of today's acts in the USA are "mega artists", on the level of the Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, or even U2. Why? Well, because their music is not as good, and as artists, they aren't as good. History will show that.

Lady Gaga, in my opinion, is more of an artist than most of the other females who have made it big. She actually sings, dances, plays piano, and writes much of her own music. The others don't seem to be able to play a musical instrument. Miley can play an acoustic guitar on occasion, but I don't get the sense she enjoys it. Taylor Swift enjoys playing guitar, but she's another story.

As for speakers being bad, compressor limiters have been around since the 1960's. The whole reason for it, has more to do with ambient noise in the end user's listening environment, rather than speakers. It's also the reason compression is used for live performances (that and to put less stress on the PA). Basically, popular music needs to be compressed, because it needs to sound loud, even when it is played back fairly quietly...because most consumers are listening in a car, or in some place where people are trying to shout over the music. 

Ever been to a party or concert where people don't try to yell over the music? I've not.

In summation, what I'm trying to say is, it's a good thing Jay Z wasn't around to stomp out early blues and rock from the 1950's, that southern people (and people in Chicago and especially Detroit)...of his own race, invented. I'm glad it took so long for rock music to die. Hopefully it will be resurrected for the youth culture, but I guess it will be different than it was. 

Youth culture today, musically celebrates thuggery, vulgarity, misogyny, in a way that is very hypocritical...not to mention it sounds really lame. And it's because the people in charge of what music gets promoted and played on air, want it that way. It's got little to nothing to do with a spontaneous desire for such, by the consumers of that music.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 28, 2014)

Artist's image played an important role since the popularization of television in the '50s , but with the MTV, the music became secondary. From this, neither young artist would be paunchy , toothless , and could never be above 30 years of age to build a career "youth idol" . Today , a young singer must have a sensuous image , and preferably a large and slinky ass. Then type or breasts sticking her blouse with her ​​nipples . The male artists (ironically) have to be effeminate appearance but hostile attitude (Bieber) .

A good quality music still being made everywhere , but does not sell millions , and the record is not Youtube . The phones that play music and video in "random" mode makes a pass time that satisfies the immediacy , and prevents the contemplation of the moment where everything stops to listen to music .

Excess images on the internet also trivialized the photograph. The "selfies" of teenagers looking at himself the mirror cram Facebook, and they do not care about aesthetics , and even keep the files for the future . If Facebook goes bankrupt in 10 years , the photographs of a whole generation of young people will cease to exist . It is the culture of disposability . And exhibitionism Tweeter and WhatsApp ?

If music has been disposable, photography also. We, photographers trust our photo files storage on your computer, or in the "cloud", but it does not last many years, as the real photographic paper. A large magnetic tespestade the sun can destroy our digital files, and have no more analog photographic negative. In the distant future, archaeologists will find what about our current civilization?


----------



## cayenne (Feb 28, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > I actually think Wrecking Ball is a very good pop song, but I agree music has gone downhill.
> ...



When I see very young kids today, wearing AC/DC and Zeppelin and Stones tshirts, and actually also LISTENING to the music of my day, I'm torn on how to feel about it.

I mean, I'm happy that it shows the artists of my day put out good material that has stood the test of time, but I also feel bad for them in that, there *SHOULD* have been a number of bands that had taken their place over these past few decades with solid music that the world would be enjoying and be a common language for the youth of generations past mine, but it appears that got side tracked along the way somewhere.

I find it funny to be wearing on occasion one of my genuine concerts shirts from the day...and seeing a kid that is about 12yrs old, wearing a reproduction of it. I drove into a parking lot at a grocery store the other day, it was a friday afternoon after work, I had the top down and was jamming to old Zeppelin Dazed and Confused, the 30 min version on The Song Remains the Same soundtrack album. I guess it was blaring.

I shut it and the car down, got out and walking in, one of the very young stock boys was sitting outside on break and started kinda head banging my way and shouted "Hey, great song man, I love zeppelin".

I smiled, but when I got inside, I wondered, how the hell did a kid that young know that song well enough to know what it was? I mean, it was in the middle of the part where Jimmy was playing a heavily effects driving guitar with a violin bow...unrecongnizeable to most anyone that was a Zep fan from my age I'd have thought.

Interesting...interesting.

Oh and yes, I'd love to talk stereo some too....stereos that "glow" are cool. EVerything is better in audio with tubes IMHO.


cayenne


----------



## Policar (Feb 28, 2014)

Say what you will about Britney Spears, but KISS is some of the worst music of all time.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 28, 2014)

It seems this thread has derailed from a 4M$ picture, not worth having, to 4M$ music not worth having :


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 28, 2014)

Before anyone start posting pictures of squirrels to restore sanity ... The issue is that conceptual art (and contemporary photography ) gives me nausea . They are supported by a dozen wealthy investors who are more " understood " that the true artists . To me the opinion of other photographers about a photo has great value . On the other hand , to me the opinion of art critics worth as much as a piece of feces , because they do not know anything about photography.

I'm not a professional musician , but I play guitar at church weekly , and I know the value of music is emotion. If the music does not thrill ( positively or negatively ) who listens , then there is no reason to listen to it . The visual arts are also cause emotions in the beholder. Otherwise is something sterile and useless. However , everyone has the right to make the kind of art he like . One can not force me to agree that a work is worth millions because of the artist signing .

Thankfully discs Led Zeppelin did not cost 4 million after being established artists. For if it were so, I would go bankrupt. I guess that 30 years later today, the discs Led Zeppelin continue to be desired and heard by many people. And Justin Bieber discs will cost less than a used condom.  Excuse me friends of Canada. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 28, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Thankfully discs Led Zeppelin did not cost 4 million after being established artists. For if it were so, I would go bankrupt. I guess that 30 years later today, the discs Led Zeppelin continue to be desired and heard by many people. And Justin Bieber discs will cost less than a used condom.  Excuse me friends of Canada. ;D



Don't make fun of Justin Beiber..... He saved my Dad's life..... Dad was in a coma in the hospital for three months, completely unresponsive. The nurse turned the radio to a Justin Beiber song and Dad came out of the coma, stood up, walked to the radio, and turned it off 

Don't worry about offending Canadians by dissing Justin Beiber... He is as well loved up here as appendecitis....


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully discs Led Zeppelin did not cost 4 million after being established artists. For if it were so, I would go bankrupt. I guess that 30 years later today, the discs Led Zeppelin continue to be desired and heard by many people. And Justin Bieber discs will cost less than a used condom.  Excuse me friends of Canada. ;D
> ...


Wow! Justin Bieber should be canonized because he's done a miracle.  But, let's think of deaf patients who can not benefit from the healing power of Bieber. :-[ Oh, I know. : We put a picture of 4 million in front of the bed, and the patient will be so bored of looking at it, he will stand up to remove that annoying image of the front.


----------



## almeida100 (Mar 1, 2014)

Sure, the top half is a bit busy, but for just 1 million you can clone it out yourself.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 1, 2014)

almeida100 said:


> Sure, the top half is a bit busy, but for just 1 million you can clone it out yourself.


 ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Artist's image played an important role since the popularization of television in the '50s , but with the MTV, the music became secondary.



You are correct. But I say if you want your files to last a long time, have them stamped on some sort of gold CD-R's (I don't think you can do gold DVD-R, or B-DR...not sure). Then put them inside a thick carbon fiber safe box, and bury it a mile under ground...


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2014)

cayenne said:


> When I see very young kids today, wearing AC/DC and Zeppelin and Stones tshirts, and actually also LISTENING to the music of my day, I'm torn on how to feel about it.
> 
> I mean, I'm happy that it shows the artists of my day put out good material that has stood the test of time, but I also feel bad for them in that, there *SHOULD* have been a number of bands that had taken their place over these past few decades with solid music that the world would be enjoying and be a common language for the youth of generations past mine, but it appears that got side tracked along the way somewhere.
> 
> ...



I guess I can kind of relate to that. I was born the same year Led Zeppelin 1 came out. But I recall in the late '80's, how most of my friends loved them, and all of what we thought of then as "classic rock". My first exposure to rock music, was in third grade, seeing kids wearing KISS t-shirts...1977.

What blows my mind, is that even 5 or 8 years ago, Pearl Jam and Nirvana were already being thought of as "classic rock". Other "pop rock" bands like Matchbox 20 from the late 1990's, that I kind of liked...have now apparently been forgotten by everyone. Even bands from post 2000 such as Coldplay, that I also pretty much like...seem to be in the process of being forgotten (especially here in America).

But I say, don't just smile at a kid who appreciates the music of the era of your own youth, or anyone else who reads this. Speak to them about it a bit. Tell them how cool it was to see them in concert. I recall enjoying the gaping mouths from younger people, even from over 10 years ago...when I told them I saw all the hair bands back in the day...and especially something like seeing the original Guns n' Roses, OPEN for Motley Crue on the "girls girls girls" tour in late 1987...itself named after the Elvis movie (that almost nobody my age at the time knew about)!

Did you see the Ted Nugent episode recently on "That Metal Show", on VH1 classic? Watch it, it's hilarious and entertaining as can be! (He didn't even get into politics, which was good...he does plenty of that elsewhere...not that I disagree with him at all though...haha). The guy is 65 years old and still has a lightning fast sense of humor, along with the energy and ability he had when I first saw him live in 1991, with "Damn Yankees"...and that was well over a decade after he first became a really big deal (as you know). On the show, he spent a good 15 minutes giving his rock and blues heroes their due, and telling how he played with them. He seems to do this every time he's interviewed somewhere. When he said one of his favorite new artists is Bruno Mars...I can kind of see why in a way (it reminds him of Motown of his youth). But frankly though, in 2030, nobody will remember Bruno. They'll all be learning "stranglehold" on guitars, though! And they'll be dreaming about "sweet poontang"!! hahaha...it's down here in Nashville, according to Uncle Ted! 

Oh, and I almost forgot, if you haven't seen it yet, seek out the interview on David Letterman from a year or more ago, when he had Plant, Page, and Jones on. He asked Jones something like, "back in the old days when you guys had made it, how do you think you compared to your peers?" And Jones kind of softly but quickly snaps back "that's assuming there were peers"...!! Plant laughed and said something like "that's why we don't usually let him talk".


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 1, 2014)

almeida100 said:


> Sure, the top half is a bit busy, but for just 1 million you can clone it out yourself.



HILARIOUS!!! +11111


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 4, 2014)

I don't necessarily think music has gone downhill. Rather, there is just a greater quantity of music, so there is more to sift through.

Just like having 1000 cable channels with 24/7 content necessarily reduces the hit rate of good programming, having a million new musical "artists" every year means good music is harder to find. I suppose the same is true for photography.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 5, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> I don't necessarily think music has gone downhill. Rather, there is just a greater quantity of music, so there is more to sift through.
> 
> Just like having 1000 cable channels with 24/7 content necessarily reduces the hit rate of good programming, having a million new musical "artists" every year means good music is harder to find. I suppose the same is true for photography.



not to mention the flood of garbage cookie cutter singer/ talent shows that churn out the most unbelievable drivel
never overestimate the intelligence of the general population...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 5, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> I don't necessarily think music has gone downhill. Rather, there is just a greater quantity of music, so there is more to sift through.
> Just like having 1000 cable channels with 24/7 content necessarily reduces the hit rate of good programming, having a million new musical "artists" every year means good music is harder to find. I suppose the same is true for photography.


The abundant amount of information makes it difficult to achieve what we truly seek. Yes , today the Internet allows access to artworks that were formerly available only in museums . I can hear some music CD that I only find in specialty stores , and it is wonderful . The problem is that the supposed " democratization" of information tries to force us to consume what millions of people enjoy. Viral Videos on Youtube are a disguised advertising. Facebook is a haven for exhibitionists , with photographs of their ghastly poses , stretching his arm with a smartphone to show " friends " what you had for lunch or what defecated in the bathroom . I think the best word is not democratization , but trivialization of information .

If anyone is on line in various "social networks", it will receive dozens of photos (bad), you will hear many songs (bad) and assist countless videos without important content. How these people get attention? Well, Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, and other "artists" recreate your image continuously to remain attractive to the crowds. In this sense, the academic art looks unattractive, and "conceptual art" try amazed aesthetic aberrations (dress made of meat?). Instagram's filters give the illusion that any fotogafia becomes work of art through software, and computer screens or smartphones are the only means of end almost all photos taken today.

There will always be good singers, photographers, painters, but they achieve visibility amidst the ocean of garbage trying to steal our attention?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 5, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> There will always be good singers, photographers, painters, but they achieve visibility amidst the ocean of garbage trying to steal our attention?


Is it any coincidence that the most _successful_ photographers are the ones that are the _best_ at marketing their work?

Here's an interesting take on this from someone with perspective (Interview with Steve McCurry of the Afghan Girl fame):

*Q: When talking about change, many photographers allude to the fact that we're all inundated with images now thanks to Instagram and the web in general. Have you seen a change in the way we interact with photos because of that?*

A: People are taking many more photos now, but we have always been inundated with pictures. 40 or 50 years ago we would have magazines and newspapers, but now there's Instagram, the Internet and all of that. It's an evolution.

(emphasis added)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > There will always be good singers, photographers, painters, but they achieve visibility amidst the ocean of garbage trying to steal our attention?
> ...


Guess I'll have to hire a marketing specialist from Lady Gaga, vertir me raw meat and other crazy things to be a rich photographer.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 7, 2014)

The only accessible way to make money in photography is to do weddings, or to do product photography, and to a lesser degree portrait, school, or event photography. And even then, there are plenty of others who are doing the same thing, competing for your customer. Certainly there are a few who have had long careers and made the big time in fashion photography, or for National Geographic or similar...or in the "photo art" world. But I have a hard time believing someone today can start along a similar path and ever arrive at similar notoriety after a few years. Digital has cheapened it but also made it too easy to do quality work. Not that I would want to change that, it's just that it's kind of like going to Alaska to look for a wife or something. Too many men...!! I think that, rather than trying to become a successful landscape photographer, a more realistic goal for myself, is to become the next President of the United States...


----------



## anthonyd (Mar 7, 2014)

almeida100 said:


> Sure, the top half is a bit busy, but for just 1 million you can clone it out yourself.



This is an unmistakable masterpiece. Please post your bank account, I would like to wire you a million dollars.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 7, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> ...I think that, rather than trying to become a successful landscape photographer, a more realistic goal for myself, is to become the next President of the United States...



At least, that position becomes vacant every 4-8 years. Landscape photographers are still competing against Ansel Adams and the guy's been dead for 30 years.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 11, 2014)

unfocused said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ...I think that, rather than trying to become a successful landscape photographer, a more realistic goal for myself, is to become the next President of the United States...
> ...



Indeed, and the person who paid $4 million for the image that started this thread, would probably say "Ansel...who?"


----------



## traingineer (Mar 14, 2014)

What a lucky man, although, 4 million dollars is still ridiculous.


----------

