World's most expensive photo

<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>

 

<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>

<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>

<p>Hum I wonder maybe the best way to get Recognized Just send Christie's some of your work and see what happens .</p>

<p>More money than brains?<br>

/Clay</p>

<p>Obviously there were'nt many PNer's at the auction!</p>

<p>Art / Photography has a subjective component to it, doesn't it?</p>

<p>I love that photograph.</p>

<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>

<p>It's a much better photo than Cindy Sherman's mediocre snapshot that was the previous holder of this "distinction."</p>

<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>

Nice shot

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

It woul cost far more than $50 to frame it. It's 12 feet long.

<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>

<p>$4.3 million? If only they'd asked me, I'd have taken it for half of that!</p>

<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>

The buyer is a collector and could care less what people from a web forum think.

<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>

 

<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>

<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>