World's priciest Photograph... bland

[K-amps]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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... ???

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]

Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland

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

 

[awinphoto]

Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland

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]

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 – 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]

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]

Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland

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]

Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland

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]

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... ???

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]

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... ???

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.

 

[pj1974]

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]

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]

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

 

[c-law]

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]

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]

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]

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. . . .