May 24, 2013, 03:28:03 AM

Author Topic: World's priciest Photograph... bland  (Read 11750 times)

K-amps

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1423
  • Whatever looks great !
    • View Profile
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2011, 12:52:37 PM »
Well... one thing is fore sure... Gursky would not shoot with a lowly MP Camera...  ;)
EOS-5D Mk.iii 
EF 17-40mm F/4L; EF 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; EF 100mm L F/2.8 IS Macro, 50mm F/1.8ii;  85mm f/1.8;  TC's 2x Mk.iii; 1.4x Mk.iii

canon rumors FORUM

Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2011, 12:52:37 PM »

c-law

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
    • Chris Law Photography
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2011, 03:00:07 PM »
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
Canon 5D MkII, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, EF 70-200m f/2.8L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, 580EX, LP160, a couple of home made macro & pinhole lenses.

Joereimer

  • Guest
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2011, 03:56:10 PM »
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

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2011, 04:12:40 PM »
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

  • Guest
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2011, 04:32:23 PM »
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

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
    • View Profile
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2011, 04:39:12 PM »
Well...I clearly don't get it.

And I'm fine with that.
Canon 5D Mark III w/BG-E11, Canon 7D w/BG-E7: EF 24-70mm f.2.8L, EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, EF 40mm f2.8 Pancake STM, Speedlite 430EXII + 430EXI, Canon EOS 3

dr croubie

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1355
  • Too many photos, too little time.
    • View Profile
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2011, 05:00:50 PM »
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.
Too much gear, too little space.
Gear Photos

canon rumors FORUM

Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2011, 05:00:50 PM »

Ivar

  • Rebel T4i
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2011, 05:28:29 PM »
But why did he take it?

Congratulations!

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


ions

  • EOS M
  • ****
  • Posts: 243
    • View Profile
    • ions' flickr
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2011, 05:48:27 PM »
"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.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 06:08:35 PM by ions »
Gear: Canon EOS 7D | Canon EF-S 10-22 ƒ3.5-4.5 | Canon 24-70 ƒ2.8L | Canon 100 ƒ2.8L | Canon 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II | 420 EX | Tamrac Evolution 9 | Crumpler 8 MDH | Manfrotto 190QC, 804RC2 head.
flickr

docsmith

  • Rebel T4i
  • ****
  • Posts: 118
    • View Profile
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2011, 05:51:56 PM »
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.   :P  ;)

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

  • EOS M
  • ****
  • Posts: 213
  • Watching for pigs on the wing
    • View Profile
    • My Facebook
Canon 5D3  ,  70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II ,  24-105mm f/4 L IS  ,  50mm f/1.4  ,  85mm f/1.8 ,  EF 2x III
Olympus OM2-SP , 50mm f/1.2 , 55mm f/1.2 , 50mm f/1.4 Silvernose , 135mm f/2.8 , 28mm f/2.8

c-law

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
    • Chris Law Photography
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2011, 07:04:28 PM »
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
Canon 5D MkII, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, EF 70-200m f/2.8L IS USM, EF 50mm f/1.8 II, 580EX, LP160, a couple of home made macro & pinhole lenses.

Orion

  • Guest
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2011, 07:11:02 PM »
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)

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.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 07:24:53 PM by Orion »

UncleFester

  • Guest
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2011, 08:31:18 PM »


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.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 08:33:48 PM by UncleFester »

bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 816
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2011, 10:00:49 AM »
bit of the emperor's new clothes i think!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: World's priciest Photograph... bland
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2011, 10:00:49 AM »