November 27, 2014, 09:48:46 AM

Author Topic: $4 Million Photograph  (Read 13484 times)

anthonyd

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2014, 04:43:15 PM »
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2014, 04:43:15 PM »

dawgfanjeff

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
    • Flickr Site:
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2014, 04:49:58 PM »
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.
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:)
5DIII, | 100 2.8 Macro | 24-105L | 16-35 f/4L
70-200 f/4L IS | 50 1.4 | 10-22 (for sale!)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3478
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2014, 04:54:25 PM »

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...

The best camera is the one in your hands

Policar

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2014, 05:20:10 PM »
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. :)
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 05:22:49 PM by Policar »

thepancakeman

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 457
  • If at first you don't succeed, don't try skydiving
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2014, 05:37:36 PM »
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

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2014, 06:12:26 PM »
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.


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.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 06:27:43 PM by Policar »

ajfotofilmagem

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1071
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2014, 06:23:16 PM »
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.
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
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 06:25:19 PM by ajfotofilmagem »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2014, 06:23:16 PM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2014, 06:29:07 PM »
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

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1513
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2014, 07:03:49 PM »
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.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

distant.star

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1562
    • View Profile
    • Tracy's Shooting Gallery
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2014, 07:11:05 PM »
.
Well, there are different ways of getting to $4 mil.

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

Walter: Were you listening to The Dude's story? Donny: I was bowling. Walter: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...

EdB

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2014, 07:21:11 PM »
Art, like any other object for sale, is all about marketing.

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1499
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2014, 08:01:57 PM »
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.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 5D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2014, 08:43:16 PM »
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.

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...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2014, 08:43:16 PM »

x-vision

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2014, 09:12:45 PM »
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

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1071
    • View Profile
Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2014, 09:24:52 PM »
I prefer this.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: $4 Million Photograph
« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2014, 09:24:52 PM »