AJHingel Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>The world's most expensive photo sold at Christie's in NewYork for 4.3 million dollars: <a href="http://pinchukfund.org/upload/iblock/54e/Rhein-II_!.jpg">Andreas Gursky: "RheinII"</a></p> <p>Surely a 3/3 in the PN critique forum.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <blockquote> <p><em>"Surely a 3/3 in the PN critique forum."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>No, just a '3'. It's obviously been awhile since you last used the critique forum. ;-) :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>You've got to be kidding! Talk about BS winning out over actual art. Guess I need to photograph more grassy fields. Of course, then I'd have to find someone stupid enough to buy it--and obviously Christie's is the place to go. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lauren_macintosh Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>Hum I wonder maybe the best way to get Recognized Just send Christie's some of your work and see what happens .</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clay2 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>More money than brains?<br> /Clay</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_j2 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>Obviously there were'nt many PNer's at the auction!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stp Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>Art / Photography has a subjective component to it, doesn't it?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_gardiner Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>I love that photograph.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clay2 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>Violates beginner's rule # 1, don't put your horizon in the middle, ha!<br> <br /> Reminds me of Canada's 'Voice of Fire' fiasco:</p> <p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire</p> <p>Best regards,</p> <p>/Clay</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>It's a much better photo than Cindy Sherman's mediocre snapshot that was the previous holder of this "distinction."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Art / Photography has a subjective component to it, doesn't it?</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, and the photo.net crowd tends to dislike conceptual photography and post-modernism. Sherman's photos, for example, are very carefully lit, costumes are chosen and made. If the definition of "snapshot" is "quickly taken photo," then Sherman's photos are the opposite.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_essedi Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Nice shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>The buyer might have been able to create a more interesting art piece had he simply piled the $4.3 million in a corner of his mansion. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former P.N Member Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>It may be the most expensive photo sold but I'm betting this is the most expensive to produce. ;-)</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earthlights_dmsp.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earthlights_dmsp.jpg</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_wilson Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>For some reason I am reminded of the phrase in the introduction to <em>Bernard Shaw on Photography</em> where he is characterized as "as good a photographer as he is a motorist, and considerably less dangerous."</p> <p>We can dispute matters of fact, we can enjoy disputing matters of opinion. But there is no disputing matters of taste.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonjb Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>I like it ... but then I also liked Cindy Sherman's photographs so what do I know?<br /> I am not sure if I would pay 4. 3 million. If it comes in a nice frame I might pay $50 for it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <blockquote> <p>the photo.net crowd tends to dislike conceptual photography and post-modernism.</p> </blockquote> <p>Absolutely, although this is more modernist in its minimalism than PM. I quite like it, but my funds are a little limited.</p> <p>I'm guessing that for the 1%-er that bought it, the price was chump change. Probably the equivalent of that $50 that Gordon would pay for it.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It woul cost far more than $50 to frame it. It's 12 feet long. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordonjb Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>Jeff, thanks for pointing that out, for those of us who may not have know. <br /> I may be able to go as high as $75 provided that it is double matted.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>$4.3 million? If only they'd asked me, I'd have taken it for half of that!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathewDH Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>Can you imagine a crowd of regular photographers like us in the back at such an auction. After the gavel falls, the whole group breaks out into laughter, and the buyer suddenly comes to his senses. That would be a Kodak moment :-)</p> <p>Mathew</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 The buyer is a collector and could care less what people from a web forum think. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_crofts Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>I don't know the photo in question, and can't tell much from the low res web pic, but I can understand why people would be willing to pay an awful lot for an Andreas Gursky print. Maybe on the high side, but I presume there are reasons why this particular print went for so much.</p> <p>It's good news that photography is increasingly getting recognition and commanding high prices, as it should. It's true that photos like this would probably be overlooked on web forums, but that's just a comment on the inadequacy of web forums, and possibly unfortunately lack of visual education in the general public, nothing to do with the merits of the photo.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <p>At that price, I would probably characterize the buyer more as an investor. Let's hope down the road someone else will be willing to pay more than $4.3M if the current owner decides to put it up for sale. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 <blockquote> <p><em>"I presume there are reasons why this particular print went for so much."</em></p> </blockquote> <p>A quote from: <br /> <a href="http://www.aristos.org/backissu/yesbutis.htm">http://www.aristos.org/backissu/yesbutis.htm</a></p> <p>"Because it takes more than an exposé on "60 Minutes" to topple this house of cards. Too much money and prestige are invested in it for its proponents to yield without a fierce struggle. Major cultural institutions and corporate sponsors--not to mention countless "artists," dealers, collectors, curators, and critics--have their fortunes and reputations at stake."</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now