World's most expensive photo

<p>Simon, I didn't phrase my words very well but my point is simply that both artistic value and monetary value are personal and subjective, and there is no globally recognized or accepted central authority which governs it.</p>

<p>The sale of $4.3M could have been for reasons as lame as "my wife likes it, she had to have it, so I bought it".</p>

<p>I am dismissive of certain art and art forms because I'm entitled to. In this instance, not because I don't believe there is no intrinsic artistic value, but because commerce tainted the value of art monetarily, and to me, irrationally.</p>

<p>Ferrari is different. It's a car, not art.</p>

<p>What does "chromogenic color print face-mounted to acrylic glass" mean in English?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am dismissive of certain art and art forms because I'm entitled to. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure <strong>Michael,</strong> by all means.<br>

<strong>Swarma</strong>, I would suggest that you google Type-C or C-print.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What does "chromogenic color print face-mounted to acrylic glass" mean in English?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Essentially, it is just a wet print-a type C print you would get from a lab-- (versus an inkjet print) that has been mounted such that the face of the print is attached to the plexiglass/acrylic. The work can then be mounted to the wall without a frame if desired and is protected by the acrylic, which also gives it structure (rigidity). Of course, in normal framing the acrylic protects the surface of the print while with this method a mar on the acrylic might be a permanent mar on the piece.</p>

<p>I agree with the statement above that bottom line each person has to come to his/her own conclusion about any piece of art. I think we sometimes do think that because we can see, we know all there is to know. We do the same thing with music, if we don't like it we often see comments condemning it instead of any interest in learning more about it. Learning about something doesn't mean we have to agree with it, like it or fully understand it. What we are after is trying to begin to appreciate something outside of our awareness which in itself will move us in ways we might not expect. Something that can be beneficial to our own work and its growth.</p>

<p>Huge signage and even art murals are part of our daily lives. We experiencing them as a social activity. The museums and other public institutions have always provided that familiar experience for looking at art. What artist wouldn't be happy to oblige them? Not for an opportunity to charge by the square yard but to grab on to a significant challenge to their creative vision. I wouldn't suppose what Gurskey was asking me to experience without being in front of the real picture. Its not that his pictures don't engage the viewer or provoke some intellectual stimulus except for their size. This one, however, and others seem to me rather weak beyond that dimension. In my mansion I'd have it at the end of a long, wide hall leading to the gymnasium. <br>

And then there is always the question of valuing art as <em>output</em>. Hey, come to think of it I'll take two - one for each end of my mansion's gynasium.</p>

<p>Michael,<br /> Some autos ARE art! <br /> Which do you prefer: Ralph Lauren's collection of classic cars or a room full of Renoirs?<br /> The Art of the Automobile, Masterpieces from the Ralph Lauren Collection at Les Arts Decoratifs Museum in Paris April 27, 2011.<br /> <a href="http://totallycoolpix.com/2011/06/the-ralph-lauren-classic-car-collection/">http://totallycoolpix.com/2011/06/the-ralph-lauren-classic-car-collection/</a> <br /><br /><a href="http://www.renoirpaintings.org/">http://www.renoirpaintings.org/</a></p>

<p>Hmm, I'd add something myself if only I could get the following app to work on my as-yet-unbought iPhone:<br>

(<a href="http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/postmodernism-generator/id379838784?mt=8">link</a>)</p>

<p>but perhaps this sample from (<a href="http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/">link</a>) will do</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the distinction between masculine and feminine. Bataille’s critique of Lacanist obscurity holds that sexuality may be used to entrench archaic perceptions of sexual identity. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a precapitalist textual theory that includes reality as a paradox.<br>

“Class is part of the absurdity of sexuality,” says Derrida. Debord suggests the use of Lacanist obscurity to analyse and read culture. It could be said that many deappropriations concerning the difference between class and language may be found.<br>

If Derridaist reading holds, the works of Eco are modernistic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a way you've hit on one of my (as yet unresolved) issues JDM.</p>

<p>I'm wary and somewhat suspicious of "art" devoid of craft - of concept without technique. The less craft and technique, the more words (pseudo-intellectual, and embarrassingly lacking in real meaning) are needed to justify the piece. When you see art that marries concept to craft, skill and technique, there is rarely a need a write an essay on what the "artist was trying to say".</p>

<p>This leads to the question... "What is art?" Is an ugly car just an ugly car, but a beautifully designed one somehow becomes "art" (or is it simply a beautiful piece of automotive design)? Is all beautiful design to be considered "art"? Does beauty make something artistic, and must all art therefore be beautiful? Does art need to have a concept, make people think, stir emotions, be original?</p>

<p>Better minds than mine have pondered these questions - I'll stick with the old standby that I know it when I see it. For my money (literally) I see nothing special in the Gurskey at all - small, large or printed on the side of a building. I have seen thousands of images of landscapes reduced to graphic elements - most of them more interesting, engaging and aesthetically pleasing - and I genuinely believe that reputation, collectability, hype and future value have more to do with this sale than merit.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The less craft and technique</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One thing you couldn't accuse Gursky of is not being a master of craft - of technique. He's probably one of the greatest masters of technique in photography, right up there with Ansel Adams and co. You just have to step near one of his prints, and you see the enormous amount of work and skill that go into preparing it. And while others have followed in his wake, he was one of the first masters of recording and manipulation of detail on a huge scale. Something like his F1 print is a lesson in technique in itself, both pre- and post-production. It's one of the reasons no doubt why he commands such high prices.</p>

<p>Whether or not you like his art is a different matter.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/182/6/4/F1_Boxenstopp_by_altItab.jpg">Here's a reasonable sized JPEG of his F1 picture</a>. Click on the image to magnify it a bit further.</p>

<p>You have to imagine it with the level of detail of a 20 foot long print, and bear in mind that it was photographed on a large format film camera. I think it would be very hard to say that there is no craft gone into it: <a href="http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs27/f/2008/182/6/4/F1_Boxenstopp_by_altItab.jpg">here</a></p>

<p>And <a href="http://metropolism.com/reviews/andreas-gursky-a-question-of-siz/resources/f1-boxenstopp.jpg?version=4b6538a44a1dfdc2b83477cd76dee98e">this gives a rough idea of its size</a> and impact in a gallery.</p>

<p>Simon - my comments about art devoid of craft, concept without technique were stated generally and not specific to Gursky or anyone else. I have no doubt whatsoever that he is very technically proficient at making large detailed prints - as are the artists at Duggal Color Lab.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as are the artists at Duggal Color Lab</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I haven't seen any of their personal projects, so have no idea whether they're great photographers who've photographed interesting projects demanding superb skills as large format photographers, and then done all the post production to bring the project together - so can't compare. If they have, I take my hat off to them, and I'd love to see the results of their photography. OTOH hand, maybe they're just good at sticking other people's hard work and skill together. In either case, it doesn't take away from the fact that Gursky is a consummate craftsman.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>concept without technique were stated generally and not specific to Gursky or anyone else</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm glad to hear you didn't mean Gursky. It would be a bit like saying that Ansel Adams didn't know how to expose a negative. But I'm not a great believer in general statements that don't relate to anyone at all.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Michael, Some autos ARE art! "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, cars are engineering and technical achievements. The aesthetic element is incidental to its primarily purpose designed to facilitate commerce - no one will buy even the best car in the world if it was ugly. </p>

<p>No car company has ever marketed a vehicle as functional art because not only would it be pretentious, it would be a patent lie, again for the purposes of commerce. </p>

<p>For the same reason, whether it's residential housing or electronics, just because it might be pretty doesn't mean it's art. </p>

<p>What if I took the shot and had it printed up that large ? Would it be art ? I doubt it. Which means the label "art" is too much attached to those people who we are told ARE artists. I like the F1 shot much better than the river shot, if it comes to that. I just think the art community feeds on its self WAY too much and does get too close the the Emperor's New Cloths syndrome. In fact, following the article, which showed lots of other shots, there are quite a few that just have me shaking my head. I know, that makes me some sort of low brow with no understanding of what art is, in some circles. In my view, which puts me square in that cul-de-sac that was previously mentioned, if you have to spend a paragraph explaining what makes the item "art" with convoluted , confusing, philosophical , prose, then you are trying too hard to make a case for something that probably isn't there.</p>

<p>I hope the ice cream man visit the cu-de-sac. </p>

<p>Please, please let's not do the monthly "my kid could'a done that - 'What is art?' tail chase'".</p>

<p>I don't think art is, or at least has to be, about what we like or what we don't like but often once we understand--or at least attempt to-- what a piece is about, what concerns an artist is dealing with and such, then we start to at least appreciate the work. How many times have you heard someone in an art museum say "oh, I could do that!". Well, maybe they could but they didn't and if they turned around and did do it, it wouldn't be coming from the same place--it would be nothing more than possibly a good technical copy--<em>that sounds familiar in some way</em>.........</p>

<p>Art isn't just about the visual, which is often hard for we photographers to understand as that is primarily what it is about if that is how we make our living. For many others, it is about recording what we saw. Art is also about the ideas.</p>

<p>But seriously folks, $4.3 million is a pittance in the art world, chump change. It has always been that way, important work that is limited (paintings/sculpture often only one in existence) has always been the dominion of the very wealthy and often ends up institutionalized along the way. (Ansel Adams, who is certainly important in his own way, doesn't sell for these kinds of dollars because his work was not limited in any way. Most of his famous pieces are out there in large quantities. The museum sets alone, made after he stopped producing prints for retail sale, were created with 50 copies each as I remember) This really is not that big of a deal.</p>

<p>A very interesting photograph then, by a very interesting and highly regarded artist, operating in a high-end art mileau was sold for a very high price to someone who has the resources to buy a little bit of that artist. That's not at all unusual. How is it controversial?</p>

<p>I suppose there are still some people who make the assumption that art sales occur on a level playing field of someone's imagination. In this case, all the world's photographs would be lined up one after another anonymously, and the guy with the money would pick the best photograph? No one thinks that way, do they? No of course not.</p>

<p>You work to be famous as an artist (or someone does that part for you). You must work not just at your art, but at your notoriety, presence and importance. Then, you have moved off the common playing field and into higher circles. Circles where billionaires might be willing to drop a nice tip on you to own a piece of your soul. That buyer isn't going to be interest in my "great photo" because he's not interested in me.</p>

<p>I thought the photograph was brilliant. The price means nothing in particular. It's just a token of the buyer's desire and capability to satisfy his appetite.</p>

 

<p>To understand why a photo like "RheinII" of Gursky can be sold for more than $4 million I would personally first of all go to factors on the art marked before trying to argue that this specific photo has qualities that makes it not only the world's most expensive photo, but also a photo that in artistic quality (sublimity, awe...) goes beyond what we have seen before whether it concerns other photos of Gurski or photos of others.</p>

<p>If you follow the marked of contemporary art, such prices are not extraordinary. There are investors and art collectors that are ready to pay significant amounts, that are present in most major auctions throughout the world. Number one artist on the contemporary art market these years is by far the American painter, Jean Michel Basquiat, that died more than 20 years ago, and who sold for more than $50 million, during the last 12 months (not him personally, but his works of art !). However, the best selling artists are chinese, mostly, and German when it comes to photography, like <strong>Andreas Gurski</strong>.<br>

You would find a maximum of some 30 photos of Gurski on the marked a year that would sell for some $2-300.000 each. Photos of Gurski that are sold beyond the million is surely the exception. Other photographers, among the best selling, are far below such prices.<br>

Take <strong>Thomas Ruff</strong> (DE) and his interrogating portraits that interrogate the viewer even more than the subjects, l<a href="http://www.fotolabblog.es/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tomas_ruff_02.jpg">ike this one</a>, are sold for less than $100.000 and most for less than $20.000. Only some 60 photos of Ruff were sold last year, for example. <br>

Or take <strong>Thomas Struth </strong>(DE) and his <a href="http://actuallyidontknowanythingaboutcars.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/struth_1.jpg">street photos </a>or his <a href="http://maxcolson.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/webfile71956.jpg">shots from art shows</a> (he is known especially for those) or his <a href="http://www.contemporaryartdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2009_STELLARATOR_WENDELSTEIN_7-X_DETAIL__MAX_PLANCK_IPP__GREIFSWALD_2009_1500.jpeg">industrial shots</a> that all sell for between $50.000 and $400.000.<br>

Americans are present among the most sold but with works that go for a maximum of $100.000 (Mapplethrope) and $200.000 (Robert Longo). Chinese photographers are present too, like <strong>Li Gui Jun </strong> and his shots on <a href="http://www.schoeni.com.hk/images/(B)LGJ-Day%20Dreaming.jpg">womens place in modern China</a>, that sell for up to half a million dollars. </p>

<p>Most of these best selling photographers on the market of contemporary art, are presenting works where we find mostly figurative shots that makes it maybe more easy to see the artisitic intentions of the artist than what is the case when we admire the "RheinII" of Gurskin, because of its abstract message.<br>

Only by arriving in front of "RheinII" with the ballast of abstract art, and especially paintings of the 60s and 70s) like, as mentioned, Marc <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fondationbeyeler.ch/sites/default/files/fondation_beyeler/sammlung/kuenstler/mark_rothko/rothko_untitled-plum-and-dark-brown_l.jpg" target="_blank">Rothko</a>, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://media.paperblog.fr/i/249/2495006/joan-mitchell-19251992-peintre-americaine-vec-L-3.jpeg" target="_blank">Joan Mitchell</a>, Jackson <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.artchive.com/artchive/P/pollock/pollock_blue_poles.jpg" target="_blank">Pollock</a> or Pierre <a rel="nofollow" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_HzdqlE1JWfs/TEz_RK8NmSI/AAAAAAAAAYY/veFQPm-UFI8/s1600/pierreSoulage2.jpg" target="_blank">Soulage</a> does the photo of Gurski, in my view, start going beyond a simple shot of green-land and a river...</p>

 

I didn't read all the replies but one thing is clear. There was at least another person who bid around the $4 million mark.

 

This means that the photo could easily be resold for $4 million in the future. The times are apparently hard at the moment

so imagine when the good times come rolling around again.

<p>Being a famous 'name' isn't enough in itself. The previous record price for a photo print was Cindy Sherman at. $3.9 million. I took part in an auction last year that had a 1957 Cindy Sherman print going in it for <a href="http://www.westlicht-auction.com/index.php?f=iframe&object=auction&id=215268&sub=215267&acat=215268&offset=12&_ssl=off">a 'mere' 1300 Euro starting price</a>. And it went unsold at that price ie. no bids.</p>

<p>So bidders don't buy prints blindly just because it's a famous artist. There has to be something unique, iconic, or significant about the work itself, it has to have some special appeal. And, as you say, there have to be at least two serious buyers who think so. And the prices for photo prints are still relatively low compared to many other artworks. Which makes them look like a good investment.</p>

 

<p>Hmmm. Does bigger make it better? That's nearly $359,000 per foot.</p>

 

The Rhine River photo reminds me of one taken to burn that last shot on a roll of film, the "waster" that almost never

gets shown to anyone else.

 

Crazy, crazy.

<p><strong>Simon</strong> you are surely right. Quality of prints play a central role. <strong>Andrew </strong>is also right that as long as a few rich amateurs of contemporary art have convinced themselves of the existence of each others the market is there and the price of the art work will be stable or increasing as it has done over time since long - although the 2008 crisis depressed the market for a couple of years.</p>

<p>Maybe, if it interest anybody around, I should complement my short text on the photographers that mark the market of contemporary art these days by mentioning the main, and first of all of cours <strong>Cindy Sherman</strong> (US) (the prices of her works have been stable and even depressed since 2000, but seem to explode the last two years), <strong>Andreas Gurski (</strong>DE), <strong>Richard Price</strong> (US) (the guy with the cowboy!) <strong>Hiroshi Sugimoto </strong>(JAP)<strong>(</strong>even more abstract than "RheinII" <a href="http://www.studiospg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/sugimotoHmediterraneansea.jpg">like this one</a> or portraits of "names", here <a href="http://www.strozzina.org/cms/p/p000220/Sugimoto_Fidel_Castro__19993786a51afe.jpg">Fidel Castro</a>) - all of which sell for up to over the million dollars, per print. But there are others that are almost always present in the big auctions and shows: <strong><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KLA-jBQd3vU/TOa_B_0D3sI/AAAAAAAAAWE/i2dzvcFipXg/s1600/vikElizabeth_Taylor.jpg">Vik Muniz</a></strong> (Bresil), <strong>Mike Kelly</strong> (US), <strong><a href="http://www.laboiteverte.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/becher_gastanks_1983-92.jpg">Bernd et Hilla Becher</a> </strong>(DE), <strong><a href="http://static.mcetv.fr/img/2011/06/Zahia-By-Pierre-Gilles-1.jpg">Pierre & Gilles </a></strong>(Fr) - nude! <strong><a href="http://www.terminartors.com/files/artists/3/7/8/3783/Gilbert_and_George.jpg">Gilbert & Georges</a> </strong>(UK), <strong><a href="http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2010/09/01/3809834/ANSEAnitaIlkovski.jpg">Andres Serrano</a> </strong>(US) (to choose a shot that does not provoke indignation !), <strong><a href="http://blog.madame.lefigaro.fr/bizet/Exposure_of_luxury.jpg">David La Chapelle </a></strong>(US), <strong>Rachid Rana </strong>(Pakistan), <strong><a href="http://maryniec.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/07.jpg">Florian Maier-Aichen</a></strong> (DE)... apart from those mentioned in an earlier post.<br /> All these photographers were represented ,for example, at the annual art show in Paris "FIAC 2011" and were among the most "visited" both during the restricted show of professionals, and by the great number at the public show. Photography is clearly booming on the art market, both in the US and Europe but maybe mainly in the most promising market (for investors), the Chinese market (Hong Kong).</p>

Richard Prince is a special case, as he;s not a photographer, he pinches photographers' work. So the cowboy picture was

taken by someone else and used without permission. He's been sued for it...

 

He apparently calls himself a 'rephotographer'.

<p>That's right Simon. Richard Prince use photography in most of his art <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-22urUhFgnnc/TYnVzsnLfpI/AAAAAAAABeg/i-bIIxs31Eg/s1600/Sonic_Youth-Sonic_Nurse-Frontal.jpg">like this one </a> but is not a photographer but maybe a ready-make artist like Duchamps. He has been sued by the photographer Patrick Cariou for his practice of "borrowing".</p>