July 25, 2014, 01:28:47 AM

Author Topic: World's priciest Photograph... bland  (Read 13437 times)

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
World's priciest Photograph... bland
« on: November 10, 2011, 04:35:27 PM »
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


« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 09:31:37 AM by K-amps »
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

World's priciest Photograph... bland
« on: November 10, 2011, 04:35:27 PM »

Bob Howland

  • Guest
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2011, 04:54:32 PM »
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

  • Guest
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2011, 04:57:23 PM »
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

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2011, 05:16:29 PM »
Did some research... he shoots Film, so the prints are one of a kind... I get it a bit now... ???
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
Sigma 24-105mm F4 ART; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1968
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2011, 05:19:03 PM »
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. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

markIVantony

  • Guest
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2011, 05:42:48 PM »
Maybe it's more about the man who took the picture than the picture itself?

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1968
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2011, 06:01:57 PM »
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. 
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2011, 06:01:57 PM »

unfocused

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1915
    • View Profile
    • Unfocused: A photo website
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2011, 07:20:22 PM »
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 – 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.
pictures sharp. life not so much. www.unfocusedmg.com

Hillsilly

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 720
    • View Profile
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2011, 08:46:15 PM »
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!

1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1397
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2011, 09:18:54 PM »
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?
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

Ivar

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2011, 06:16:23 AM »
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

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
    • Japhoto blog
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2011, 06:48:03 AM »
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

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2011, 10:05:36 AM »
Did some research... he shoots Film, so the prints are one of a kind... I get it a bit now... ???

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.

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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2011, 10:05:36 AM »

pj1974

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
    • A selection of my photos (copyright)
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2011, 10:12:31 AM »
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
I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

Orion

  • Guest
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2011, 11:33:46 AM »
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.

Small | Large


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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2011, 11:33:46 AM »