World's priciest Photograph... bland

[Orion]

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]

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]

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 don´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 that´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 it´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.
it´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 don´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 über-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]

Lulz. I've long given up on pompous, self-important "works of art" when I learned that someone would actually pay €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]

The Tate is so much fun.

[Jettatore]

Watch this.

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

It fits here perfectly.

[dilbert]

What we're all missing is that the "world's priciest photo" isn't a photo that he just went out and took.

This photo has been discussed a lot recently in Germany (and thus probably in German.)

The actual scene looks nothing like what we see in the photo.

What has happened is that the photographer has airbrushed out a lot of buildings, etc.

This is not a one-off, that is his style.

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.

[Edwin Herdman]

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]

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 ;-)