World's priciest Photograph... bland
- Thread starter K-amps
- Start date
- Status
Orion said:
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.
Upvote
0
"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.
Upvote
0
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.
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
Big difference.
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
Upvote
0
Definitely not the world's most costly photograph!
http://www.crudeoilcrisis.com/GalaxyCropped%20GasStarBirthVeryGood%2012%2004.jpg
http://www.bruceonshaving.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Earth-Rise.-Apollo-11.jpg
http://www.crudeoilcrisis.com/GalaxyCropped%20GasStarBirthVeryGood%2012%2004.jpg
http://www.bruceonshaving.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Earth-Rise.-Apollo-11.jpg
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
O
Orion
Guest
dr croubie said:
. . . . 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)
dr croubie said:
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.
Upvote
0
U
UncleFester
Guest
Re: World's pricient Photograph... bland
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.
awinphoto said:
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.
Upvote
0
The bit that c-law and others are missing is that there is something of a gold-bug angle to pricing "fine arts" as well: Why is it expensive? It's expensive because investors see it as a store of value!
As to the rest of the argument, I think I hold some common ground with Orion in saying that we can distinguish different reasons for holding a piece of artwork to be valuable than somebody else - and we can judge them superior to others (though I would suggest avoiding this, as I will explain at the end). Perhaps part of the answer why "modern art" values are so disjoint from "common sense" artistic sense is the result of the modern (i.e., post-Revolutionary France) dislocation from and an apparent destruction of notions of value - i.e. the notion of absolute bases for morals (dead along with God, according to one worldview), or the worth of traditional subjects for fine art to commemorate or extol the virtues of the benefactor (Papist or Medici; elector or local clergy); this follows Hans Sedylmayr's 1948 work "Art In Crisis," which seems better described by its original title "Loss of the Center," speaking of Germans and name-dropping).
It would be disingenuous to say that modern art is all characterized by the attitudes of pernicious territoriality, or that artists are unconcerned with content (it would be fair to say, however, that it is characterized by the tension between content and form, e.g. the poet's attention to sound and pattern on the one hand, and on promoting their ideas on the other - and the only time it seems warranted to denounce an artist's particular balance is when they have put their art in service of something we dislike, which of course is an argument unrelated to the form and content). Just as Sedylmayr finds that there is a "loss of the center," from the time he examined right up to the present one also finds reason to be critical of authority figures. In its simplest form, the question becomes: If I am sending a message through my work, whose will it be? So phenomena like the "Rape Tunnel" and the proliferation of content-free images are probably less myopic and navel-gazing, in one sense, than they seem.
On the other hand, I think it is definitely fair game to turn the question around: By declaring war on all content, how do many artists and their modern heralds admit that the extremes of morals-expunged or morals-laden works have anything left to do with art?
Oscar Wilde's "The Decay of Lying" provides multiple answers to the questions, but chief amongst these is that life imitates art (it might help to think of this in the sense of things attempting to become perfect, or to approximate a Platonic ideal, although I do not want to get Plato into this beyond his notion of an ideal plane of existance, which Art most closely approximates), and that Art exists for its own sake.
In putting content-free, or morality-laden, artworks up as the ideal, artists and their owners (not a typo) have essentially returned to nature, creating dim, warped images of nature, rather than pure ideals which go farther than nature.
Although Wilde's piece is not clearly wholly serious, I think even he would nod in consternation at how far the market for artworks has diminished the position of artistic content.
For the chief value of an expensive photograph, or a painting, coin, or hand of dirt or anything, is its market value, so we are told and constantly reminded by the endless printing of headlines heralding a "new record set at auction." The wealthy investor-buyer of an artwork (who, it should be noted, is partly to blame for the increasing prices of "classic" artworks which most of us would consider simply invaluable) does not need to care an iota about the content, but rather is trying to predict the whims of the market. A particularly scathing piece about the vacuousness of a certain photographer's works might end up merely furthering the notoriety of that piece. The fine arts market is in a classic bubble, but it does not appear to be a bubble because so far the wealthy have not been asked or forced to put priority in creating a broad base of wealth, nor have any of the other typical restraints worked to deflate a market whose chief value is its very impracticality. To the ideal of equality, the wealthy pay lip service; in practice, they seek ever more unassailable and intangible constructions of wealth, and pack their cherished collections off into vaults never to be seen again. Ironically, more practically invested this money would have a tangible salutary effect on the wealthy as well as on everyone else, but jealousy prevents them from seeing the potential to lift everyone together.
The corrupting effect this mentality has on society takes many, and surprising forms, but of the true and unchanging value of artworks - the persistence and survival of a superior idea or ideal - is something that is not reflected in a balance ledger. You either "get" an argument or an artwork, or you do not.
As the Bible recommends us to remember, silver tarnishes and tapestries become moth-eaten. Even so, some people who profess themselves ardent Christians still promote a return to the Gold Standard, in the idea that - rather like the clueless art buyer at auction - gold itself has some inherent monetary value. What is the inherent value of gold? Its inherent value is its value, apparently.
For the wealthy, inflation is a chief evil; for the poor, unemployment is. (See William Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech - just the synopsis will explain it). Do not be fooled into thinking that the "value" at auction of an artwork as a wealthy man's hedge against inflation is at all related to its utility or durability as a popular meme or a useful idea. Somebody might try to trademark or get wealthy off other peoples' pictures of dogs with funny hats on their heads, or cats asking if they can haz cheezburgers, but the real value is not money - it's that common element. It doesn't matter if Socrates or Aristotle didn't have as good a hedge for their earnings as somebody else - we still remember them after more than two thousand years.
OK, so what IS a good reason for valuing an artwork? Indeed, the context matters for some people. But the context of a dead-ended intellectual dating game is meaningless for anybody not in on that little secret, as well. Ultimately, I think that what we value in an artwork is what we value as rational human beings: The ability of a work to espouse the ideals we subscribe to. For the superrich, that may be context-free photographs of alternating blue and green stripes, which are as unable to evoke sympathy for the poor as they are unable to condemn the misappropriation of our public debate over the proper role of government. For everyone else, that may be the hard-fought distinction to be somehow remembered after one's death without the benefit of public trusts in your name.
(Of course, you might notice that I've somewhat sidestepped c-law's central point, which is that there is a monolithic school of thought on photography - nonense. If some people calling themselves Germans have been bowed over by the wishes of wealthy investors or institutions, that does not diminish the very public role of contrarian viewpoints in shaping the public acceptance of photographs - for every esoteric mention of one school or another, one properly positioned book or article might turn the discussion in a different direction - like here, for instance. As far as I can distinguish it, the argument that the Düsseldorf school seems to promote is that fame can be arbitrary - which of course is either an abandonment of Art's potential for content, or it is an implicit attack on the idea of merit by means other than worth - since the members of the Düsseldorf school will happily take your money, no matter where you come from; therefore it is suddenly Art which is left without a defender. Both readings smell strongly of apathy to me; that might agree with Wilde's piece above, but please consider where his political apathy got him.)
As to the rest of the argument, I think I hold some common ground with Orion in saying that we can distinguish different reasons for holding a piece of artwork to be valuable than somebody else - and we can judge them superior to others (though I would suggest avoiding this, as I will explain at the end). Perhaps part of the answer why "modern art" values are so disjoint from "common sense" artistic sense is the result of the modern (i.e., post-Revolutionary France) dislocation from and an apparent destruction of notions of value - i.e. the notion of absolute bases for morals (dead along with God, according to one worldview), or the worth of traditional subjects for fine art to commemorate or extol the virtues of the benefactor (Papist or Medici; elector or local clergy); this follows Hans Sedylmayr's 1948 work "Art In Crisis," which seems better described by its original title "Loss of the Center," speaking of Germans and name-dropping).
It would be disingenuous to say that modern art is all characterized by the attitudes of pernicious territoriality, or that artists are unconcerned with content (it would be fair to say, however, that it is characterized by the tension between content and form, e.g. the poet's attention to sound and pattern on the one hand, and on promoting their ideas on the other - and the only time it seems warranted to denounce an artist's particular balance is when they have put their art in service of something we dislike, which of course is an argument unrelated to the form and content). Just as Sedylmayr finds that there is a "loss of the center," from the time he examined right up to the present one also finds reason to be critical of authority figures. In its simplest form, the question becomes: If I am sending a message through my work, whose will it be? So phenomena like the "Rape Tunnel" and the proliferation of content-free images are probably less myopic and navel-gazing, in one sense, than they seem.
On the other hand, I think it is definitely fair game to turn the question around: By declaring war on all content, how do many artists and their modern heralds admit that the extremes of morals-expunged or morals-laden works have anything left to do with art?
Oscar Wilde's "The Decay of Lying" provides multiple answers to the questions, but chief amongst these is that life imitates art (it might help to think of this in the sense of things attempting to become perfect, or to approximate a Platonic ideal, although I do not want to get Plato into this beyond his notion of an ideal plane of existance, which Art most closely approximates), and that Art exists for its own sake.
In putting content-free, or morality-laden, artworks up as the ideal, artists and their owners (not a typo) have essentially returned to nature, creating dim, warped images of nature, rather than pure ideals which go farther than nature.
Although Wilde's piece is not clearly wholly serious, I think even he would nod in consternation at how far the market for artworks has diminished the position of artistic content.
For the chief value of an expensive photograph, or a painting, coin, or hand of dirt or anything, is its market value, so we are told and constantly reminded by the endless printing of headlines heralding a "new record set at auction." The wealthy investor-buyer of an artwork (who, it should be noted, is partly to blame for the increasing prices of "classic" artworks which most of us would consider simply invaluable) does not need to care an iota about the content, but rather is trying to predict the whims of the market. A particularly scathing piece about the vacuousness of a certain photographer's works might end up merely furthering the notoriety of that piece. The fine arts market is in a classic bubble, but it does not appear to be a bubble because so far the wealthy have not been asked or forced to put priority in creating a broad base of wealth, nor have any of the other typical restraints worked to deflate a market whose chief value is its very impracticality. To the ideal of equality, the wealthy pay lip service; in practice, they seek ever more unassailable and intangible constructions of wealth, and pack their cherished collections off into vaults never to be seen again. Ironically, more practically invested this money would have a tangible salutary effect on the wealthy as well as on everyone else, but jealousy prevents them from seeing the potential to lift everyone together.
The corrupting effect this mentality has on society takes many, and surprising forms, but of the true and unchanging value of artworks - the persistence and survival of a superior idea or ideal - is something that is not reflected in a balance ledger. You either "get" an argument or an artwork, or you do not.
As the Bible recommends us to remember, silver tarnishes and tapestries become moth-eaten. Even so, some people who profess themselves ardent Christians still promote a return to the Gold Standard, in the idea that - rather like the clueless art buyer at auction - gold itself has some inherent monetary value. What is the inherent value of gold? Its inherent value is its value, apparently.
For the wealthy, inflation is a chief evil; for the poor, unemployment is. (See William Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech - just the synopsis will explain it). Do not be fooled into thinking that the "value" at auction of an artwork as a wealthy man's hedge against inflation is at all related to its utility or durability as a popular meme or a useful idea. Somebody might try to trademark or get wealthy off other peoples' pictures of dogs with funny hats on their heads, or cats asking if they can haz cheezburgers, but the real value is not money - it's that common element. It doesn't matter if Socrates or Aristotle didn't have as good a hedge for their earnings as somebody else - we still remember them after more than two thousand years.
OK, so what IS a good reason for valuing an artwork? Indeed, the context matters for some people. But the context of a dead-ended intellectual dating game is meaningless for anybody not in on that little secret, as well. Ultimately, I think that what we value in an artwork is what we value as rational human beings: The ability of a work to espouse the ideals we subscribe to. For the superrich, that may be context-free photographs of alternating blue and green stripes, which are as unable to evoke sympathy for the poor as they are unable to condemn the misappropriation of our public debate over the proper role of government. For everyone else, that may be the hard-fought distinction to be somehow remembered after one's death without the benefit of public trusts in your name.
(Of course, you might notice that I've somewhat sidestepped c-law's central point, which is that there is a monolithic school of thought on photography - nonense. If some people calling themselves Germans have been bowed over by the wishes of wealthy investors or institutions, that does not diminish the very public role of contrarian viewpoints in shaping the public acceptance of photographs - for every esoteric mention of one school or another, one properly positioned book or article might turn the discussion in a different direction - like here, for instance. As far as I can distinguish it, the argument that the Düsseldorf school seems to promote is that fame can be arbitrary - which of course is either an abandonment of Art's potential for content, or it is an implicit attack on the idea of merit by means other than worth - since the members of the Düsseldorf school will happily take your money, no matter where you come from; therefore it is suddenly Art which is left without a defender. Both readings smell strongly of apathy to me; that might agree with Wilde's piece above, but please consider where his political apathy got him.)
Upvote
0
A
aiman
Guest
I "think" this is not a photograph. It is "art". It is like when yo walk in an art museum and find an abstract work; simple, few lines, even some color splashes and you think "anyone" can do that. Just like Mark Ruthko work. But I "believe" you have to go through many stages in your artistic life to reach such simplicity, yet meaningful expression.
It takes time though to understand it (if only you want to off course), and appreciate it.
As for the price tag, it is all what is it for the beholder. Some brush strokes on a medium size canvas been sold for hundreds of millions. it is all about what is inside the frame, and what life story behind every stroke/click.
It takes time though to understand it (if only you want to off course), and appreciate it.
As for the price tag, it is all what is it for the beholder. Some brush strokes on a medium size canvas been sold for hundreds of millions. it is all about what is inside the frame, and what life story behind every stroke/click.
Upvote
0
O
Orion
Guest
This image, which is very simple and no other work done to it, other than pressing the shutter button, speaks to me about this world. It conveys to me a sense of belonging, in that although our heads may be full of 'noise' and confusion ( leaves and branches 'melting' together), if we take the time to take our heads out of the clouds with our noses in the air, we will see that the world is really more simple and clear (tree trunks).
Ok who wants to pay me couple million for this image! Ok, what if I make it cleaner and remove the houses from the bgackground. . . May I then ask for 4.3 million? Please? What if I use a film camera, and take multiple shots and then cut the images and use the selected parts to form a newer, cleaner image without the houses there? Who wants to pay me some nice cash for this?
Ok what If I take my film and digital camera and take a few nice shots of the Rhine? Then I will either cut the film and make a new image with clean lines and simple composition, or edit in post using PS, instead of the fiom darkroom. . . . who knows maybe I will make more money doing that . . maybe millions!!! Thing is, nobody knows me . . I am not a name in the fine art world. . . . If only I was well known, such an image might fetch some nice cash, I bet.
Can I get maybe $200 for my photo . . I'll make it a signed limited edition.
Tell you what! I'll redo the whole thing and instead, take a couple months and work on the image, using different parts of the sdame scene . . the 2 months' time work on the image may make it more meaningful, once I clean it up and come up with a new scene from this old one. Yeah . . . . I think I can make the fine art world . . . .
--------
Hey what about my dead flower image!!!
Bet I can get in teh fine art world with that some day soon!
PLEASE HELP STARVING ARTIST! Can I be famous too! I want to be artist, then!
(*insert cheesy grin here)
Ok who wants to pay me couple million for this image! Ok, what if I make it cleaner and remove the houses from the bgackground. . . May I then ask for 4.3 million? Please? What if I use a film camera, and take multiple shots and then cut the images and use the selected parts to form a newer, cleaner image without the houses there? Who wants to pay me some nice cash for this?
Ok what If I take my film and digital camera and take a few nice shots of the Rhine? Then I will either cut the film and make a new image with clean lines and simple composition, or edit in post using PS, instead of the fiom darkroom. . . . who knows maybe I will make more money doing that . . maybe millions!!! Thing is, nobody knows me . . I am not a name in the fine art world. . . . If only I was well known, such an image might fetch some nice cash, I bet.
Can I get maybe $200 for my photo . . I'll make it a signed limited edition.
Tell you what! I'll redo the whole thing and instead, take a couple months and work on the image, using different parts of the sdame scene . . the 2 months' time work on the image may make it more meaningful, once I clean it up and come up with a new scene from this old one. Yeah . . . . I think I can make the fine art world . . . .
--------
Hey what about my dead flower image!!!
Bet I can get in teh fine art world with that some day soon!
PLEASE HELP STARVING ARTIST! Can I be famous too! I want to be artist, then!
(*insert cheesy grin here)
Attachments
Upvote
0
F
Flake
Guest
If you want to make a lot of money then bland uninteresting images are the ones to shoot, this particular one commanded the second highest licence ever paid, via the stock agency Corbis.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060695/Microsoft-XP-background-How-California-view-planets-viewed-vista.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060695/Microsoft-XP-background-How-California-view-planets-viewed-vista.html
Upvote
0
I like the photograph, it is a good minimalist photograph, and as far as I can see made with good workmanship and a good large print, and shooting on film always raises the interest some. If I had shot it myself I would proud of it and I would put it on the wall. Is it worth 4.3 million? Well, a little bit pricey I think 
, but the man has a brand and a career. The same picture taken by a "nobody" like myself would not sell for the same price of course. Art price is quite little about what the actual piece of art looks like, it is about the whole context, who made it, in what way, what history the artist has, how unique the item is etc. And of course what the current fashion in the art circles are currently.
If you are into fine art you'll learn what is considered fine taste and what is not, for example I don't think a HDR-processed grunge digital picture would gain much interest.
I would not say that his photo is super-easy to do either. I don't know of a place around where I live when I can get that clean a view, you got to find the place and wait for the suitable dull weather, in this case with some horizontal bands in the clouds to echo what's on the ground, the image would be totally wrong with a dramatic sky. Minimalist photographs are quite hard to do, not because of the shooting process (it is easy), but because it is hard to find those clean views and make a good composition. Minimalist photos are less forgiving concerning composition.
, but the man has a brand and a career. The same picture taken by a "nobody" like myself would not sell for the same price of course. Art price is quite little about what the actual piece of art looks like, it is about the whole context, who made it, in what way, what history the artist has, how unique the item is etc. And of course what the current fashion in the art circles are currently.If you are into fine art you'll learn what is considered fine taste and what is not
, for example I don't think a HDR-processed grunge digital picture would gain much interest.I would not say that his photo is super-easy to do either. I don't know of a place around where I live when I can get that clean a view, you got to find the place and wait for the suitable dull weather, in this case with some horizontal bands in the clouds to echo what's on the ground, the image would be totally wrong with a dramatic sky. Minimalist photographs are quite hard to do, not because of the shooting process (it is easy), but because it is hard to find those clean views and make a good composition. Minimalist photos are less forgiving concerning composition.
Upvote
0
if somebody gave me a copy of this photograph, I wouldn't hang it
I would probably throw it away or use the nice, thick paper as expensive cardboard for some DIY project
there's art people like (e.g. I downloaded an image of a Bansky from http://www.banksy.co.uk/shop/index.html, printed it, and have it hanging on my hall), and art whose only value is that it carries a silly price (like this picture)
I would probably throw it away or use the nice, thick paper as expensive cardboard for some DIY project
there's art people like (e.g. I downloaded an image of a Bansky from http://www.banksy.co.uk/shop/index.html, printed it, and have it hanging on my hall), and art whose only value is that it carries a silly price (like this picture)
Upvote
0
Almost 30 years in professional art and art photography circles, 5 years of art school is probably enough to have some idea of art market to be the biggest scum of them all. If you think of diamonds and jewelry in general as the most overpriced and corrupted markets on earth you are probably right, but right after the art market.
All the gut feelings you have when you hear stories like the above how ridiculous this is are true in 99.9% of the cases, but people are afraid to speak up the truth just to not look ignorant.
In the age of internet when people do educate them self and are not shy to say what they really like and think, it is much harder to keep selling all those "Skys" "Bergs" and "Stins" for millions of dollars, but they desperately keep trying anyway... In the end this is just another way to invest money in something totally "abstract", ridiculous and useless, but good for the name recognition and status.
All the gut feelings you have when you hear stories like the above how ridiculous this is are true in 99.9% of the cases, but people are afraid to speak up the truth just to not look ignorant.
In the age of internet when people do educate them self and are not shy to say what they really like and think, it is much harder to keep selling all those "Skys" "Bergs" and "Stins" for millions of dollars, but they desperately keep trying anyway... In the end this is just another way to invest money in something totally "abstract", ridiculous and useless, but good for the name recognition and status.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
