# World's priciest Photograph... bland



## K-amps (Nov 10, 2011)

Why did anyone pay $4.3m for this...? it's nice... but whats so great about it.

Experts... please make me see the light.

http://gizmodo.com/5858107/worlds-priciest-picture-is-as-bland-as-it-is-expensive


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 10, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*

Sorry, can't help you, maybe the sheer size of it. If I'd taken it, I probably wouldn't even have printed it, but I said that about the previous record holder too.


----------



## surfing_geek (Nov 10, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*

i'm afraid it's got me stumped too! it's nice, but $4.3m nice? Not a chance! Unless I'm missing something...


----------



## K-amps (Nov 10, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*

Did some research... he shoots Film, so the prints are one of a kind... I get it a bit now... ???


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 10, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*



K-amps said:


> Did some research... he shoots Film, so the prints are one of a kind... I get it a bit now... ???



Film or not, it better be spectacular in order for me to plunk down money on... I could take this picture in my sleep on any hazy day on the west coast.


----------



## markIVantony (Nov 10, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*

Maybe it's more about the man who took the picture than the picture itself?


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 10, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*



markIVantony said:


> Maybe it's more about the man who took the picture than the picture itself?



Must be... Why else why someone buy a jackson pollock painting for millions if it wasn't pollock who painted it... otherwise most 3-4 year olds can produce competing drip paintings =) I just wish I get to the point people feel the need to plunk millions for my prints haha.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 11, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*

This might help put him into perspective: http://www.economist.com/node/14484072.

Pop artist working in photography. He gets a passing mention in Naomi Rosenblum's World History of Photography. Interesting concepts but I'm a little perplexed as this image doesn't seem consistent with his better known works â€“ which focus on consumer culture. 

I'm not overwhelmed, although I'm also not a particularly huge fan of Cindy Sherman's work either (previous record-holder according to the story). Her movie stills were interesting but kind of a one-trick pony. Her more recent work, like most attempts at using art to make political points, don't do much for me.

Personally, if I had that kind of money, there would be a lot of other prints I'd rather have: Robert Frank. Weston, Arbus, Garry Winnogrand, Stephen Shore, Joel Meyerwitz...the list could go on and on.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 11, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*

Perhaps the fact that it is so bland is what makes it so desirable. When was the last time you took a photo with nothing of interest in it? I spent a lot of time looking at it to see if I was missing something - It does get your attention. 

This is the sort of pointless photo I'd take to test that my gear was working properly. I won't be so quick to delete these in future!


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 11, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*



Hillsilly said:


> This is the sort of pointless photo I'd take to test that my gear was working properly. I won't be so quick to delete these in future!



In that case, i'm a Billionaire!!

I kind of liked the "99 Cent II Diptychon", which was the most expensive a few years ago. It kind of tells a story, and gives a nice colourful insight into the 'dreary' lives of people with less cash.
The "Untitled #96" I'd never heard of until now, and it's not such a bad photo now that i've seen it, but not the best one in the world imho.

But the expensive art world isn't about what looks good. It's all about advertising and speculating. You wouldn't pay $5mil for a nice photo by a nobody, you pay $5mil for a half-decent photo by a well-known name. And you only pay $5mil for it if you think you can get it back (and then some) in future.
(Do some reading by the critics of Saatchi for example, allegedly he finds nobodies, buys all their work for cheap, in doing so gives them a 'name', then sells their stuff a bit later for a very nice profit).
Reminds me of when the Australian government bought "Blue Poles: Number 11, 1952" for $2mil, and everyone complained, now it's worth well over $40mil, could be $100mil at auction. $2mil doesn't seem so expensive now, does it?


----------



## Ivar (Nov 11, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*



Hillsilly said:


> This is the sort of pointless photo I'd take to test that my gear was working properly. I won't be so quick to delete these in future!



Interesting, isn't it? Looks like historical background of the photographer and other external (to the photo) factors play a big role here.


----------



## japhoto (Nov 11, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*



K-amps said:


> Did some research... he shoots Film, so the prints are one of a kind... I get it a bit now... ???



If it only was one of a kind, but it's not. The sold print is one of six (so yes, a limited edition to say the least, but still). And on top of that, it's probably a "print" as in Epson print since the artist has "enhanced the photo digitally" aka. some content aware action.

It might be possible to go from a digital file to a "traditional" darkroom print, but I have no idea how that would be done, so I'm guessing it's an ink on paper print.


----------



## kode (Nov 11, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*



japhoto said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Did some research... he shoots Film, so the prints are one of a kind... I get it a bit now... ???
> ...



This isn't that unusual. Web search "digital RA-4". Both 99 Cent II Diptychon and Rhein II were printed this way, if I recall correctly.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 11, 2011)

Like several others, I also don't find this photo anything amazing. A lot has to be said about the 'name' and 'marketing' of a particular piece of art (yes, I have a marketing degree and have worked in the field for many years).

Interesting thread... and I think it does make us realise both that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and 'what you pay for' doesn't always mean 'amazing'. It's certainly not the worst photo I've seen (it has some intriguing qualities to it) - however I've seen thousands of photos I'd rather have hanging on my wall... taken by people in the forums here and many other amateur photographers around the world.

Regards to you all... and let's keep enjoying photography!

Paul


----------



## Orion (Nov 11, 2011)

This video explains how he manipulates his photos, but cutting and taping to gether the original image to make a new scene . . as he did with the Rhine image.

http://vimeo.com/17692722

He has a name brand, and if you or I were to make that same exact image, it would still be on flickr with some "awards" and a few comments, but with NO other interest or money in our pockets. THAT is the state of art and the mind boggling ignorance of self made curators that do the things they do to keep in business and create interest from zombies that are the actual creators of an image's worth. . . not the photographer.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 11, 2011)

Well... one thing is fore sure... Gursky would not shoot with a lowly MP Camera...


----------



## c-law (Nov 11, 2011)

A point that you are all mostly missing is that it isn't just big name multi-million dollar name brand artists who shoot like this. Loads of fine art photographers from students not making any money through to those making meagre livings at local galleries through to these big names use styles of photography that simple just wouldn't be made by the average photographer. Sure it is his name that made this particular print sell so high. But why did he take it?

The answer to that lies in the history and evolution of fine art as a genre. First, if you go and attend any fine art photography university course you will soon learn that that all the photos you like are frowned upon. The photo that the commercial photographer and the amateur (the general public) like is not the photo that is in any way prized by the fine art community. They simply hold a different set of values for evaluating art than the rest of the world. This set of values has been shifting constantly throughout fine art history and this particular aesthetic value has been hugely shaped since the end of the modern era. It rejected traditional forms of beauty in art and looks to the plain and mundane instead. It doesn't look to the popular visual medium, it looks to be different from what is produced by the masses.

Google the German school of photography and you should be able to read some articles that will give you some reference points.

I hope that helps a touch.

Chris


----------



## Joereimer (Nov 11, 2011)

I actually like it. It's got a nice abstract quality to it. I'd hang it in my home (not for that price, obviously).


----------



## Flake (Nov 11, 2011)

Photography selling for this kind of money does all of us good. Although it's not anywhere near Piccaso prices it puts photography firmly into the 'desireable art' catagory, I'm sure we've all heard 'it's not art all you do is press a button' and certainly photography is not as highly valued as oil or water colour.

It's just a matter of establishing a degree of credibility in the publics mind.


----------



## Orion (Nov 11, 2011)

No matter what anybody says about the German art history and style or about it being a good photo, etc. . . it still does not change the fact that if I or anyone of you here would've made that SAME image, it would STILL be on flickr with those lame ass awards people post , and absolutely NOTHING else. It takle sa name brand for some curator to come along and start spewing BS about the lines and the meaning and how the world is now changed forever on cloud nine, and how the image is also blah blah blah blah. It's a disgrace of the art world made more clear when taking into account the price for it. . . this person never picked up a brush, and instead made a composite image by cutting away the unwanted part of the scene to make something more clean from what is already there. No Picasso, and no D'avinci here . . . and NO photograher should be able to command such prices in auction, even! Like I said . . the damn curators and the whole art world is one BIG orgy of art brainwashing. It's for people with deep pockets and BS curators that are full of themselves . . and no matter what anyboidy says contrary to this, they cannot dismiss my first point in this post. Don't even waste your time. . . .


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 11, 2011)

Well...I clearly don't get it.

And I'm fine with that.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 11, 2011)

Orion said:


> if I or anyone of you here would've made that SAME image, it would STILL be on flickr with those lame ass awards people post , and absolutely NOTHING else.



I'll agree with that, but then, maybe that's the point?
Take one of us who's taken a shot like that, I know I have at times. I get home and go, "hmmm, that bird I was taking a photo of disappeared out of frame" <delete>.
Someone else might get home and look at their photo and think, "hmmm, I kinda like the colours and the wankery, I'll post it on flickr." Some people might like it, give it a 'people's choice' award or whatever and that's the end of it.
This guy has gone specifically out of his way, whether he planned this shot all along and lugged all his gear there, or was driving past on the way to shoot something else and saw the view, whatever. He took the image, did whatever processing to it (could've taken hours, days, don't know), printed it out at stupidly (and expensively) big, took it to a gallery, did his pitching and got it hung up, took it to auction and convinced someone that it would be worth more in a few years than they could spend on it today.

Where would the rest of you have given up? I gave up at the first viewing and deleted. Someone else put it on flickr and called it the end. This guy went the whole hog, did the hours of processing, gambled a lot of printing costs, had the guts to say to someone else, "this is worth hanging in your gallery, this is worth spending a lot of money buying off me". It takes a lot of guts to get that far. Is it worth kudos? Certainly. Is it worth $5mil? To someone, it is, but then they're also gambling on what the photographer will do in future, build his name bigger, then that photo will be worth more than $5mil.


----------



## Ivar (Nov 11, 2011)

c-law said:


> But why did he take it?



Congratulations!

[not many can go that far in the analysis (sic!)]


----------



## ions (Nov 11, 2011)

"Art" such as this is about the context and I don't mean the context of the photo but the context of the community in which the artist can insert the "art" into. Get your art inserted into the right circles and theorists and socio-political art industry people take over and expound on why that photo is whatever they say it is and thus it is. Then it, and the horse it rode in on, or vice-versa, get picked up as a meme in these circles and voila. Is it good? A generous meh. Is it worth that much money? No. I wouldn't even fav it on my flickr to be honest. I can't track down who said it originally but on the Gervais podcast on Art it was mentioned that somebody made the claim (not Karl, though I'd love to hear his opinion of the photo) that marketing is the greatest art in the world. Take whichever definition of great you like.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 11, 2011)

Well..for starters his photo is intended to have deep meaning and provoke thought....the meaning behind my photos, even the best of them, are.... here's a pretty bird. 

Big difference.  

Nice video btw.....overall, I like his image and I can understand it being of value. My completely untrained eye sees layers of nature, human influence, and infinite horizons/depth/lines (meaning??)....and at first glance, it looks natural, but the more you stare at it, it starts to look a little "wrong."  Thought provoking....but that is just my lame analysis...... ;D


----------



## Fleetie (Nov 11, 2011)

Definitely not the world's most costly photograph!

http://www.crudeoilcrisis.com/GalaxyCropped%20GasStarBirthVeryGood%2012%2004.jpg

http://www.bruceonshaving.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Earth-Rise.-Apollo-11.jpg


----------



## c-law (Nov 12, 2011)

Orion, I don't think anyone was disagreeing with you that if you, I or someone here took that photo that it would never have sold for that much (or at all in some cases).

What we were saying is that just because you don't value it, doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't. They have their own reasons whether that be some supposedly pretentious idea of what true art is or whether that be an investment. Why should it matter to you that someone else paid that much for it?

And the fact that it is a photograph as opposed to a painting makes no difference. It isn't about the amount of effort you put in. There are plenty of painters with plenty of talent that can't sell their paintings. And then there are some who can because they have the right access and name. In the end, it is just a different world with a different set of values. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just that if you try and judge it by the values you work from then you won't understand it and you'll just make yourself angry.

Maybe I just read your tone wrong (it is a text based forum after all) in which case I apologise but you seemed more worked up about this than the conversation calls for.

Chris


----------



## Orion (Nov 12, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> This guy has gone specifically out of his way, whether he planned this shot all along and lugged all his gear there, or was driving past on the way to shoot something else and saw the view, whatever. He took the image, did whatever processing to it (could've taken hours, days, don't know), printed it out at stupidly (and expensively) big, took it to a gallery, did his pitching and got it hung up, took it to auction and convinced someone that it would be worth more in a few years than they could spend on it today.



. . . . and the fact that he is Gursky has nothing to do with that acceptance in a gallery, or future worth? See even in the beginning, it took some curator somewhere to decide on what is art, and when in that circle, those that fixate oin the fine art world start talking about what the photo means to them and how HIS images always seem to suggest the same thing, or have a certain theme to them . . the flood gates open. I know first hand how curators think and MANy of them are full of themselves, thinking they can describe for everyone else what art is. . . and those people happen to be the ones that purchase at these auctions. NOP photo should be worth that much money, because it is wattered down art . . especially since he cuts and post-processes many images to create one. Give me a photographer that manages to capture the mood and essence of a scene without manipulation, over Gursky any day . . and even if Gursky makes images without manipulating them in post, they can never be worth this much money UNLESS they are historically important, etc (collection worthy to save and protect)



dr croubie said:


> Where would the rest of you have given up? I gave up at the first viewing and deleted. Someone else put it on flickr and called it the end. This guy went the whole hog, did the hours of processing, gambled a lot of printing costs, had the guts to say to someone else, "this is worth hanging in your gallery, this is worth spending a lot of money buying off me". It takes a lot of guts to get that far. Is it worth kudos? Certainly. Is it worth $5mil? To someone, it is, but then they're also gambling on what the photographer will do in future, build his name bigger, then that photo will be worth more than $5mil.



First, that's not usually how it happens at these auctions . . it is a collector that puts the images up for sale, or a collecxtor offers the photographer big bucks for them before hand. Secondly, it does not take guts to go to a gallery and offer one of your photos since you are already in the fine art scene with a previous world record money photo ( YES I DO understand your point though, but it does not apply here). Like I said before, it is all about his name recognition, and not about the actual image ( flickr example). Hey, I like the image, it's nice and reminds me of one of my panoramas I took a long time ago, and I have NOTHING against the photographer. . . 

I am against the art scene and thier BS pretentious egos who pretend to get in front of an image at a fine art gallery and spewt BS about what the picture is saying . . and sometimes you get to hear the photographers BS, but the less he says, the better . . sionce it is, afterall, a manipulated photo cut from images of the same scene, which does not take ARTISTRY to manipulate or create . . no matter what you want the final image to convey to peoples imagination.

edit:

btw,* c-law,*

I DO VALUE this image. I LOVE IT. Honest. That's not the point though  I DID have a littel run in with a curator, and got to see first hand how much some don't deserve the job, so this story just makes me want to bring out the point abouit the art world and what drives it. It does seem that I am worked up haha, but not really . . just annoyed a bit.

BTW, I NEED TO ADD:

that when I went against this curator, it was in defense of other photographers I didn't even know, and not for my benefit. I witnessed the curator make a BIG mistake in judgement on a photo/photographer, and I asked this curator to explain herself . . . I even told her that my photos are even NOT up to par with many of the images I saw there, even though I worked for hrs on mine in post or with lighting. So, I mention this to let you guys know what I am about. . . and understand me more.


----------



## UncleFester (Nov 12, 2011)

*Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland*



awinphoto said:


> Must be... Why else why someone buy a jackson pollock painting for millions if it wasn't pollock who painted it... otherwise most 3-4 year olds can produce competing drip paintings =)



He actually had a method that was quite unique to himself at the time. I watched a documentary on his work many years ago. Very interesting watching his fixation on what he did in his paintings.

A brilliant artist, imo. Not even for one with his disabilities.


----------



## bycostello (Nov 12, 2011)

bit of the emperor's new clothes i think!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 14, 2011)

The bit that c-law and others are missing is that there is something of a gold-bug angle to pricing "fine arts" as well: Why is it expensive? It's expensive because investors see it as a store of value!

As to the rest of the argument, I think I hold some common ground with Orion in saying that we can distinguish different reasons for holding a piece of artwork to be valuable than somebody else - and we can judge them superior to others (though I would suggest avoiding this, as I will explain at the end). Perhaps part of the answer why "modern art" values are so disjoint from "common sense" artistic sense is the result of the modern (i.e., post-Revolutionary France) dislocation from and an apparent destruction of notions of value - i.e. the notion of absolute bases for morals (dead along with God, according to one worldview), or the worth of traditional subjects for fine art to commemorate or extol the virtues of the benefactor (Papist or Medici; elector or local clergy); this follows Hans Sedylmayr's 1948 work "Art In Crisis," which seems better described by its original title "Loss of the Center," speaking of Germans and name-dropping).

It would be disingenuous to say that modern art is all characterized by the attitudes of pernicious territoriality, or that artists are unconcerned with content (it would be fair to say, however, that it is characterized by the tension between content and form, e.g. the poet's attention to sound and pattern on the one hand, and on promoting their ideas on the other - and the only time it seems warranted to denounce an artist's particular balance is when they have put their art in service of something we dislike, which of course is an argument unrelated to the form and content). Just as Sedylmayr finds that there is a "loss of the center," from the time he examined right up to the present one also finds reason to be critical of authority figures. In its simplest form, the question becomes: If I am sending a message through my work, whose will it be? So phenomena like the "Rape Tunnel" and the proliferation of content-free images are probably less myopic and navel-gazing, in one sense, than they seem.

On the other hand, I think it is definitely fair game to turn the question around: By declaring war on all content, how do many artists and their modern heralds admit that the extremes of morals-expunged or morals-laden works have anything left to do with art?

Oscar Wilde's "The Decay of Lying" provides multiple answers to the questions, but chief amongst these is that life imitates art (it might help to think of this in the sense of things attempting to become perfect, or to approximate a Platonic ideal, although I do not want to get Plato into this beyond his notion of an ideal plane of existance, which Art most closely approximates), and that Art exists for its own sake.

In putting content-free, or morality-laden, artworks up as the ideal, artists and their owners (not a typo) have essentially returned to nature, creating dim, warped images of nature, rather than pure ideals which go farther than nature.

Although Wilde's piece is not clearly wholly serious, I think even he would nod in consternation at how far the market for artworks has diminished the position of artistic content.

For the chief value of an expensive photograph, or a painting, coin, or hand of dirt or anything, is its market value, so we are told and constantly reminded by the endless printing of headlines heralding a "new record set at auction." The wealthy investor-buyer of an artwork (who, it should be noted, is partly to blame for the increasing prices of "classic" artworks which most of us would consider simply invaluable) does not need to care an iota about the content, but rather is trying to predict the whims of the market. A particularly scathing piece about the vacuousness of a certain photographer's works might end up merely furthering the notoriety of that piece. The fine arts market is in a classic bubble, but it does not appear to be a bubble because so far the wealthy have not been asked or forced to put priority in creating a broad base of wealth, nor have any of the other typical restraints worked to deflate a market whose chief value is its very impracticality. To the ideal of equality, the wealthy pay lip service; in practice, they seek ever more unassailable and intangible constructions of wealth, and pack their cherished collections off into vaults never to be seen again. Ironically, more practically invested this money would have a tangible salutary effect on the wealthy as well as on everyone else, but jealousy prevents them from seeing the potential to lift everyone together.

The corrupting effect this mentality has on society takes many, and surprising forms, but of the true and unchanging value of artworks - the persistence and survival of a superior idea or ideal - is something that is not reflected in a balance ledger. You either "get" an argument or an artwork, or you do not.

As the Bible recommends us to remember, silver tarnishes and tapestries become moth-eaten. Even so, some people who profess themselves ardent Christians still promote a return to the Gold Standard, in the idea that - rather like the clueless art buyer at auction - gold itself has some inherent monetary value. What is the inherent value of gold? Its inherent value is its value, apparently.

For the wealthy, inflation is a chief evil; for the poor, unemployment is. (See William Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech - just the synopsis will explain it). Do not be fooled into thinking that the "value" at auction of an artwork as a wealthy man's hedge against inflation is at all related to its utility or durability as a popular meme or a useful idea. Somebody might try to trademark or get wealthy off other peoples' pictures of dogs with funny hats on their heads, or cats asking if they can haz cheezburgers, but the real value is not money - it's that common element. It doesn't matter if Socrates or Aristotle didn't have as good a hedge for their earnings as somebody else - we still remember them after more than two thousand years.

OK, so what IS a good reason for valuing an artwork? Indeed, the context matters for some people. But the context of a dead-ended intellectual dating game is meaningless for anybody not in on that little secret, as well. Ultimately, I think that what we value in an artwork is what we value as rational human beings: The ability of a work to espouse the ideals we subscribe to. For the superrich, that may be context-free photographs of alternating blue and green stripes, which are as unable to evoke sympathy for the poor as they are unable to condemn the misappropriation of our public debate over the proper role of government. For everyone else, that may be the hard-fought distinction to be somehow remembered after one's death without the benefit of public trusts in your name.

(Of course, you might notice that I've somewhat sidestepped c-law's central point, which is that there is a monolithic school of thought on photography - nonense. If some people calling themselves Germans have been bowed over by the wishes of wealthy investors or institutions, that does not diminish the very public role of contrarian viewpoints in shaping the public acceptance of photographs - for every esoteric mention of one school or another, one properly positioned book or article might turn the discussion in a different direction - like here, for instance. As far as I can distinguish it, the argument that the DÃ¼sseldorf school seems to promote is that fame can be arbitrary - which of course is either an abandonment of Art's potential for content, or it is an implicit attack on the idea of merit by means other than worth - since the members of the DÃ¼sseldorf school will happily take your money, no matter where you come from; therefore it is suddenly Art which is left without a defender. Both readings smell strongly of apathy to me; that might agree with Wilde's piece above, but please consider where his political apathy got him.)


----------



## Isaac (Nov 14, 2011)

Could someone please explain why this photograph is worthy of $4.3m ?


----------



## ianhar (Nov 14, 2011)

Isaac said:


> Could someone please explain why this photograph is worthy of $4.3m ?



Did you even read any of the above comments before posting a reply?


----------



## aiman (Nov 14, 2011)

I "think" this is not a photograph. It is "art". It is like when yo walk in an art museum and find an abstract work; simple, few lines, even some color splashes and you think "anyone" can do that. Just like Mark Ruthko work. But I "believe" you have to go through many stages in your artistic life to reach such simplicity, yet meaningful expression.

It takes time though to understand it (if only you want to off course), and appreciate it.

As for the price tag, it is all what is it for the beholder. Some brush strokes on a medium size canvas been sold for hundreds of millions. it is all about what is inside the frame, and what life story behind every stroke/click.


----------



## Tokswang (Nov 14, 2011)

I already have a crap picture like this in my portfolio. He's ripping me off. Should I sue?


----------



## Orion (Nov 15, 2011)

This image, which is very simple and no other work done to it, other than pressing the shutter button, speaks to me about this world. It conveys to me a sense of belonging, in that although our heads may be full of 'noise' and confusion ( leaves and branches 'melting' together), if we take the time to take our heads out of the clouds with our noses in the air, we will see that the world is really more simple and clear (tree trunks).

Ok who wants to pay me couple million for this image! Ok, what if I make it cleaner and remove the houses from the bgackground. . . May I then ask for 4.3 million? Please? What if I use a film camera, and take multiple shots and then cut the images and use the selected parts to form a newer, cleaner image without the houses there? Who wants to pay me some nice cash for this? 

Ok what If I take my film and digital camera and take a few nice shots of the Rhine? Then I will either cut the film and make a new image with clean lines and simple composition, or edit in post using PS, instead of the fiom darkroom. . . . who knows maybe I will make more money doing that . . maybe millions!!! Thing is, nobody knows me . . I am not a name in the fine art world. . . . If only I was well known, such an image might fetch some nice cash, I bet.

Can I get maybe $200 for my photo . . I'll make it a signed limited edition.

Tell you what! I'll redo the whole thing and instead, take a couple months and work on the image, using different parts of the sdame scene . . the 2 months' time work on the image may make it more meaningful, once I clean it up and come up with a new scene from this old one. Yeah . . . . I think I can make the fine art world . . . .

--------

Hey what about my dead flower image!!!

Bet I can get in teh fine art world with that some day soon! 

PLEASE HELP STARVING ARTIST! Can I be famous too! I want to be artist, then! 

(*insert cheesy grin here)


----------



## Flake (Nov 15, 2011)

If you want to make a lot of money then bland uninteresting images are the ones to shoot, this particular one commanded the second highest licence ever paid, via the stock agency Corbis.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060695/Microsoft-XP-background-How-California-view-planets-viewed-vista.html


----------



## torger (Nov 15, 2011)

I like the photograph, it is a good minimalist photograph, and as far as I can see made with good workmanship and a good large print, and shooting on film always raises the interest some. If I had shot it myself I would proud of it and I would put it on the wall. Is it worth 4.3 million? Well, a little bit pricey I think , but the man has a brand and a career. The same picture taken by a "nobody" like myself would not sell for the same price of course. Art price is quite little about what the actual piece of art looks like, it is about the whole context, who made it, in what way, what history the artist has, how unique the item is etc. And of course what the current fashion in the art circles are currently.

If you are into fine art you'll learn what is considered fine taste and what is not , for example I don't think a HDR-processed grunge digital picture would gain much interest.

I would not say that his photo is super-easy to do either. I don't know of a place around where I live when I can get that clean a view, you got to find the place and wait for the suitable dull weather, in this case with some horizontal bands in the clouds to echo what's on the ground, the image would be totally wrong with a dramatic sky. Minimalist photographs are quite hard to do, not because of the shooting process (it is easy), but because it is hard to find those clean views and make a good composition. Minimalist photos are less forgiving concerning composition.


----------



## NormanBates (Nov 15, 2011)

if somebody gave me a copy of this photograph, I wouldn't hang it
I would probably throw it away or use the nice, thick paper as expensive cardboard for some DIY project

there's art people like (e.g. I downloaded an image of a Bansky from http://www.banksy.co.uk/shop/index.html, printed it, and have it hanging on my hall), and art whose only value is that it carries a silly price (like this picture)


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 15, 2011)

Almost 30 years in professional art and art photography circles, 5 years of art school is probably enough to have some idea of art market to be the biggest scum of them all. If you think of diamonds and jewelry in general as the most overpriced and corrupted markets on earth you are probably right, but right after the art market.
All the gut feelings you have when you hear stories like the above how ridiculous this is are true in 99.9% of the cases, but people are afraid to speak up the truth just to not look ignorant.
In the age of internet when people do educate them self and are not shy to say what they really like and think, it is much harder to keep selling all those "Skys" "Bergs" and "Stins" for millions of dollars, but they desperately keep trying anyway... In the end this is just another way to invest money in something totally "abstract", ridiculous and useless, but good for the name recognition and status.


----------



## CowGummy (Nov 15, 2011)

4.3million? Bargain - I'll take two!


----------



## CatfishSoupFTW (Nov 15, 2011)

the symmetry is nice. the lines are perfect. but the colors and/or the scene isnt BEAUTIFUL. i feel that if I took this exact same shit, i wouldnt have the same attention. Probably because this guy has made a huge name for himself.


----------



## htjunkie (Nov 15, 2011)

This really makes me sick. That picture has absolutely nothing to it. There is no light. I would have deleted right after downloading it. Is it supposed to be the equivalent of a Rothko in photography? 

There are so many amazing photographers out there, hiking miles in hostile environments, to catch breathtaking landscapes that no one would see otherwise, or photojournalists risking their life to grab an iconic war picture, or wildlife photographers taking a tack sharp picture of a rare animal in its natural habitat, after waiting for days on end to capture just the right instant, sports photographers catching a athlete mid air all the while being rained on by torrential rain, wedding photographers capturing the love and the story of a magical day in one picture...and then you get this crap, that shows zero skill or even compositional research, this crap that sells for $4.3 million. 

It would be like giving the Nobel Prize of Physics to a guy who figured how to break a window by throwing a rock at it. I'm sorry, I just don't wanna hear that it deserves any attention, let alone millions of dollars.


----------



## obsoletepower (Nov 15, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Why did anyone pay $4.3m for this...? it's nice... but whats so great about it.
> 
> Experts... please make me see the light.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5858107/worlds-priciest-picture-is-as-bland-as-it-is-expensive



My grandma has taken better photographs than this and she just learned how to use the shutter button on a camera. It has no depth, no message, colors are bland and has the horizon dead-smack in the center which is bad form. I wouldn't even pay $1 for this.


----------



## iaind (Nov 15, 2011)

Surely the price quoted was in Zimbabwean dollars.

The phrase a fool and his money........... come to mind


----------



## Orion (Nov 17, 2011)

Well to further my point just a bit, take the Ono and Lennon photo shot by Leibovitz,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Annie_Leibovitz_Lennon_Ono_December_1980.jpg

The photo really sucks arse, and would be worth NOTHING if it were not for the subjets themselves. It would just be another photo found on flickr. . . . the image is all about the person, and says absolutely nothing about the photographer (it was Lennno that suggested the photo), except that she had enough inclination to shoot from that perspective. This is ONE major example of WHY a photographer can never be paid millions of $ for a photo, as an "artist," and which is why I mentioned the fact that historical significance should play the major role when dealing with photography and such a high price range. . . . . there would be no art or interest gathered from such an image otherwise. So, that a photographer/curator/etc can take 4.3 million for a doctored photo cut from negatives of the same scene with a straight face in an appeal to art should be beyond anyone's understanding on such grounds. 

Really ponder about this^ little example for a moment on a greater scale, and see where the falacy lies in the photographic art scene. . . . Photography in the example of Ono/Lennon speaks to us of things we already know and derive great interest from. . . . and when it tries to speak to us on pretentious terms about some life meaning that we all have a shot at guessing, then it all gets lost. Meaningful Photography can be seen in such images as the Leibovitz example because it was shot the same day Lennon was killed, and he was nude . . almost cleansed, you could say, on his way out as he came in to the world. . .

THAT scene is the luck and chance and historical significance of true photography . . . not million $ 'art' but something that is unpretentious about what it is telling us, that we can plainly see universally. . . the power of photography.


----------



## koolman (Nov 17, 2011)

The value of something - is a function of what people are willing to pay for it. 

The value of art - is controlled often by many emotional variables including the perception of the artist as being special, and the content of the picture tapping into something cultural of the time.

What is being measured here in this photo - is not photography at all or the photographers skill or creativity - but an artists skill to produce a work of art that taps into what art collectors like and value.

The fact that this picture was produced by a camera is irrelevant. It is a work of art. View it as a painting.

By the way - I understand the original shot was "photo shopped" to remove distracting elements.

What we as photographers can learn here - is that often a simple well arranged image - with a clean look - containing minimal content, is the best.


----------



## Gothmoth (Nov 17, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Why did anyone pay $4.3m for this...? it's nice... but whats so great about it.
> 
> Experts... please make me see the light.
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5858107/worlds-priciest-picture-is-as-bland-as-it-is-expensive



well humans are insane.

i donÂ´t need this example to make me see that a huge percentage of humankind is mentally ill.

there is this "99 cent" image from gursky that was at least a bit more interesting and more complicated to make. it was for a short time the most expensive photography.

so if you have a name in the art community you can sell your own faeces and make good money.




> What is being measured here in this photo - is not photography at all or the photographers skill or creativity - but an artists skill to produce a work of art that taps into what art collectors like and value.



sorry but thatÂ´s bull.....

the exactly same photography made by you (or me) would not sell for more then 120-200 bucks (and that is already much and because of itÂ´s printed size).

what is measured here is the "name" of the artist.

what interests me much more then anything gursky has ever created is how some artists (especialy "modern art" artist) get their reputation. 

someone mentioned pollock already. 
itÂ´s the same.... his "action painting " can and has be reproduced by monkeys and 9 year old kids.

http://www.bilderload.com/bild/155098/9500318cC5CRA.jpg

and spare me "you donÂ´t get modern art" arguments... i heard them all.
problem is, even pollock fans would have problems to decide what is a real pollock and what not. but thank god they have a catalog of his work. :

i have seen some of pollocks stuff at tate modern in london and i was bored.
in contrast the national gallery in london shows what it means to be an "artist" not just a famous name and investment for some Ã¼ber-rich art collectors. 

btw:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/pierre_brassau_monkey_artist

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/3836/

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/naromji

in the end it comes down to this: 



> Journalist Travis Hoke noted, "Done by Artist Kester, it was art. Done by non-artist Moran, it was not."


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Nov 17, 2011)

Lulz. I've long given up on pompous, self-important "works of art" when I learned that someone would actually pay â‚¬124,000 for an "artist's" feces. Literally. Search for "artist's $h1t" on Wikipedia (for some reason the exact URL can't be pasted here). (http://www.tate.org.uk/tateetc/issue10/excrementalvalue.htm).


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 18, 2011)

The Tate is so much fun.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 21, 2011)

Watch this.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1344819/

It fits here perfectly.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 28, 2011)

dilbert said:


> This is more like another Picaso painting with lots of squares, etc. The value in the photo is more than just what you see on the canvas, etc.


I've never heard Picasso undervalued so badly. His work is a lot more than airbrushing out buildings.

But he did say "People who try to explain pictures are usually barking up the wrong tree."

Of course you are right: There is more to the sticker shock than the "value" of the photo, too. Any piece of art being assigned a value is being assigned a value based on peoples' perceptions. Curiously enough, this is how monetary value works too. Unlike monetary value, however, the clique running the pricing game for these artworks (which mean next to nothing for most people) is relatively small and relatively isolated from the considerations that let normal people realize when they are paying far too much for too little. I've already mentioned bubbles as well - these prices don't stand up to scrutiny and their ability to retain value depends on more than a willingness to hold onto it until somebody of a similar mindset and deep enough (institutional) pockets comes along to replace the current owner in the chain of custody.

I ought to be thankful that at least this isn't like the Roy Lichtenstein mess - at least the photograph was the artist's.


----------



## pedro (Nov 28, 2011)

art sometimes is limited to the gift to sell a simple object as a "must have". we had the elvis presley pill glasses auctioned... next up we'll have his white suede shoes ;-)


----------

