Most expensive photo in the world

AnCatDubh

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/5uBwSw/www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/11/most-expensive-photo-world/44772/

Wow

challengemaster

I think I know who the buyer was...

Stevie Wonder

Eirebear

Didnt Gursky also creat the "99 Cent" image, which was also once the most expensive photograph ever sold?

It's not particularly the kind of thing i would be forking out millions for, but it's not without it's merits.

However, i'm still recovering from the Art/Photography debate that appeared after the Cindy Sherman image was sold so i'll leave it to someone else!

EyeBlinks

Betya the straight horizon and rule of third guys are having orgasms now:p

Ok, it looks like a typical Irish day and scenery. Anyone care to replicate it ?

dazftw

Quote from PetaPixel on the topic "The world of fine art is difficult to understand"

sineadw

Yup, gursky held the record before sherman. No doubt that had a lot to do with the sale price of this one.

EyeBlinks

sineadw wrote: »

Yup, gursky held the record before sherman. No doubt that had a lot to do with the sale price of this one.

And?

It's a nice pic, but tbh it's like the Celtic Tiger, it won't do photography any favours.

Iwannahurl

I didn't realise I was in such good company.

I don't think I was aware of Gursky. Curiously enough I have a few photos of my own in a similar style, adorning the walls at home.

Now I think I'll just decide to pitch them at a "price point" of $4.5 million. They won't sell of course, but they'll still be the most expensive photos in the world. For a while at least.

Mellor

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Now I think I'll just decide to pitch them at a "price point" of $4.5 million. They won't sell of course, but they'll still be the most expensive photos in the world. For a while at least.

Not unless they sell

stoneill

Jasus - some people would buy anything.

.Longshanks.

If I had of take it, it wouldn't even have make it as far as lightroom

smash

I'm pretty sure my 6 year old could have taken a similar photo.

kelly1

$4.3m for that piece of cr*p!??!?! :eek:

Promac

It's not just the image - it's a c-print, 140x81 inches, mounted on plexi-glass.

He's considered a master photographer - check out the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Gursky

Just because you could take the same shot if you were standing in the same place and time doesn't come close to choosing to stand there at that exact place and time and then go on to sell the resulting print (not image) for such a high price.

It's not science, it's art and art is entirely subjective. People have always said the same of Jackson Pollock's stuff but they all sell for a sh1tload of cash.

magicbastarder

i hate the 'anyone could take that photo' argument.
sure, anyone could.
but only one person did.

anyway, i like the photo. i'd have paid nearly €50 for it. €120, in a nice frame.

smash

I really don't think the whole 'anyone could take that photo' and 'art is entirely subjective' really matter here because even though it's subjective, there is nothing artistic about it... it's just so dull and boring with nothing to focus on and it evokes no emotion at all.

It feels like the photographer is taking the piss out of 'art' by putting this up for sale.

Promac

It's not just taking the photo - it's the whole package: a huge part of art like this is becoming that specific artist. Making the connections he made with specific people, studying with specific people, learning his craft, etc. That image might be sharp as split atoms for all we know. The lines might be perfectly straight. Who knows. Point being, it's not just a snap of a river.

magicbastarder

smash wrote: »

I really don't think the whole 'anyone could take that photo' and 'art is entirely subjective' really matter here because even though it's subjective, there is nothing artistic about it... it's just so dull and boring with nothing to focus on and it evokes no emotion at all.

that's a hell of a statement to make. maybe it's a reaction to overblown landscapes? maybe it's due to it's sheer physical size?
maybe it's because landscapes are a thousand a penny these days that one which strips the format back to its bare bones is one which now stands out.

Promac

smash wrote: »

I really don't think the whole 'anyone could take that photo' and 'art is entirely subjective' really matter here because even though it's subjective, there is nothing artistic about it... it's just so dull and boring with nothing to focus on and it evokes no emotion at all.

It feels like the photographer is taking the piss out of 'art' by putting this up for sale.

This is "Blue Poles" by Jackson Pollock. It sold for 2 million dollars in 1973 - it was the highest price ever paid for this kind of "art".


Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not great.

tfitzgerald

Promac I don't understand it, and truthfully nit only do I not think it's great I'm sorry to say I think it's rubbish.

smash

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's a hell of a statement to make.

Sorry but I just can't see anything endearing about it. Even as far as landscape photography goes, it's not an attractive landscape.

Has it seriously got to the point where you have to say "Well it's a photo by *insert artist name* so it must be good"? because that's a crap attitude.

Promac

tfitzgerald wrote: »

Promac I don't understand it, and truthfully nit only do I not think it's great I'm sorry to say I think it's rubbish.

You think it's rubbish because you can't see any reason for it to be good. The price-tag alone should give you a pointer here.

People who don't drink wine generally don't like expensive wine. People who do drink wine develop the ability to taste why it's expensive.

smash

Promac wrote: »

You think it's rubbish because you can't see any reason for it to be good. The price-tag alone should give you a pointer here.

In general I think that price tags like that usually don't reflect the quality of the piece but rather the amount of disposable income held by the purchaser who is probably buying it as an investment rather than because they like it.

People fall into a trap that because an expert says it's good, then they fell they have to agree disregarding whether they like it or not.

Promac

smash wrote: »

In general I think that price tags like that usually don't reflect the quality of the piece but rather the amount of disposable income held by the purchaser who is probably buying it as an investment rather than because they like it.

People fall into a trap that because an expert says it's good, then they fell they have to agree disregarding whether they like it or not.

It's nothing to do with whether you like it or not. If you want that kind of "art" there's a great little picture shop on liffey street that'll sell you all sorts of lovely pictures.

People "fall into a trap" of thinking that good art is supposed to be pretty or pleasurable or "nice to look at". Bollox.

magicbastarder

smash wrote: »

Sorry but I just can't see anything endearing about it. Even as far as landscape photography goes, it's not an attractive landscape.

that's fair enough, it's not the sort of image everyone will like.

and yes, people often buy art as an investment or as a statement.

smash

Promac wrote: »

People "fall into a trap" of thinking that good art is supposed to be pretty or pleasurable or "nice to look at". Bollox.

In my opinion, good art should evoke emotion of some sort. I'm just confused as to how this photo can do that at all.

magicbastarder

Promac wrote: »

You think it's rubbish because you can't see any reason for it to be good. The price-tag alone should give you a pointer here.

it's a perfectly valid opinion though. he thinks it's rubbish because he can't see merit in it.
this is not an argument you'd have with someone whose opinion on a movie - say 'sex and the city' - differs from yours. you think it's ****, they like it, end of story.

velopeloton

I like it, in a minimalist sort of way. I would like to hang it on my wall. I wonder if he posted it here how many likes he would get.

I have never understood how a photo can be worth more than a few thousand €. It not like an original painting of which there can only ever be one. It is very easy to print more photos. If that was the only copy and the negative was destroyed, it would still be possible to photo that photo and print thousands of copies which no one could tell apart from the original.

magicbastarder

velopeloton wrote: »

If that was the only copy and the negative was destroyed, it would still be possible to photo that photo and print thousands of copies which no one could tell apart from the original.

it's almost 7 foot by 12 foot. tough job copying it.

on that note, it works out at almost €400 per square inch. which sounds slightly more reasonable, but it means that at the same price, an 8x10 would cost around €30k.

magicbastarder

who'd have thought that dmitriy medvedev would make the list on the most expensive photos ever?
http://www.businessinsider.com/andreas-gursky-photo-record-most-expensive-2011-11#5-russian-president-dmitry-medvedevs-photo-kremlin-of-tobolsk-2009-sold-for-1750000-in-2010-12

sbsquarepants

It's all a matter of personal taste. I hate these so called experts who claim to have some sort of handle on whether "x" piece of art is great, crap, or somewhere in between. You look at it and you either admire it or you don't. Take Duchamps fountain - some see a masterpiece, others a piss pot, it's all subjective. To claim one group is right and the other wrong is just ridiculous, and more than a little patronising.
Although, with that been said, in this case I have to agree with smash - it's absolute crap in my opinion. Is it worth €4m - of course it is, if there's someone willing to part with €4m for it! Wouldn't be me though.

magicbastarder

kev_Longshanks100 wrote: »

If I had of take it, it wouldn't even have make it as far as lightroom

bet you're regretting your pruning process now. you could have been a millionaire.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Disclaimer: I studied Art as far as 1st year in school, i.e. I am clueless.

In my opinion, it's important to consider the print. A print that size would be, presumably, quite hard to make, or at the very least would require a certain skillset to do well. This should cut down on the amount of people who think 'I could do that so easily'. Yes you could probably compose a similar photo, even that one, but as was said earlier, it probably wouldn't make lightroom. This guy took the photo, and then believed in it enough to make a massive print of it, physically. I'd imagine at that size it's probably more like an abstract piece, where the overall aesthetic is transformed by viewing distance. The piece is the physical print, not the captured image. For all I know you can see every blade of grass if you stick your nose in it. The effort the artist went to to create, not just capture, the piece is worth something, in my opinion.

Now when it comes to the price tag, well if you consider that the artist is well known, and his pieces have commanded very high prices in the past, then you can see how it makes some sense, as an investment. Think about a 1 bed basement kip in Rathmines pulling in high 6, low 7 figure sums during the property bubble. Objectively speaking was it worth 750k-800k? Hardly, but then the person buying it wasn't buying it to simply have it, and enjoy the use of it, they were buying in the expectation that it would either hold it's value, or outperform other investments. Who knows if this piece will even make the buyers wall, or will it be locked up in a vault and pulled out in 5 years time when it's doubled in value?

So to say there's no value in the piece intrinsically, is wrong in my opinion, given the effort and skill required to create it, and the high price tag is at least understandable, given the market context in which it was sold.

Just my 2c.

superflyninja

magicbastarder wrote: »

sure, anyone could.
but only one person did.

But that one person that did is a famous photog.
If you or I took that photo most likely it most likely wouldnt get photo of the day on pixie never mind sell for that amount of money. Because a famous photog took it then he must have meticulously planned it and have a big concept behind it etc.It gets people thinking in a different way about the shot. Whereas if I posted it (from what I've experienced) the thoughts from others would be based purely on the surface, like oh there is no foreground interest etc, its boring. I would be very interested if there is any critique on the image available. Without knowing the background of the photog, intentions of the image etc , it holds zero interest from me and I certainly wouldnt hang it up in my home. Wouldnt even click "thanks" on it on a random thread.

magicbastarder

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Just my 2c.

you'd be able to buy one thirtieth of a square millimetre of that print with that 2c.

magicbastarder

superflyninja wrote: »

If you or I took that photo most likely it most likely wouldnt get photo of the day on pixie never mind sell for that amount of money

i know you probably didn't intend that statement to be examined, but i would not pay much heed to what would make photo of the day on pixie.

it's clear from 'the simple things' thread that people *do* like stuff like that.
i wouldn't get hung up on criticism along the lines of 'there's no foreground interest', because that sort of critique is a very amateur camera club phenomenon, where they have to pick concrete evidence for or against a photo, instead of just going on feel.

superflyninja

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know you probably didn't intend that statement to be examined, but i would not pay much heed to what would make photo of the day on pixie.

it's clear from 'the simple things' thread that people *do* like stuff like that.
i wouldn't get hung up on criticism along the lines of 'there's no foreground interest', because that sort of critique is a very amateur camera club phenomenon, where they have to pick concrete evidence for or against a photo, instead of just going on feel.

lol.....sorry. The last time i replied on a thread like this i mentioned blown highlights just as a throwaway remark as to how i've seen a fair few photos be judged and the same here.

superflyninja wrote:

"Whereas if I posted it (from what I've experienced) the thoughts from others would be based purely on the surface, like oh there is no foreground interest etc, its boring"

That has happened here too. I was only commenting on the general level of feedback given on photography forums. The lack of foreground was just an example of this level.Just to repeat this is VERY general,im not specifying that the image be submitted to the simple things thread . I think i need to work on my clarity of writing a tad . Again the pixie photo of the day was a general remark about the attention a that shot might get if posted here.

Eirebear

superflyninja wrote: »

lol.....sorry. The last time i replied on a thread like this i mentioned blown highlights just as a throwaway remark as to how i've seen a fair few photos be judged and the same here. That has happened here too. I was only commenting on the general level of feedback given on photography forums. The lack of foreground was just an example of this level.Just to repeat this is VERY general,im not specifying that the image be submitted to the simple things thread . I think i need to work on my clarity of writing a tad . Again the pixie photo of the day was a general remark about the attention a that shot might get if posted here.

The thing is though, the vast majority of photographs seen on here - are very much adapted for screen purposes.
The buyer of this image didnt purchase a 72dpi screen grab to use as his desktop wallpaper.

Presentation and format, along with the screwy artworld and the artists name all add up to the prices that people will pay for these things.

So to say it wouldnt get much attention on the internet is a wee bit naive in my opinion, Gursky has made a career out of simple repetitive patterns, straight lines and huge prints - i have no doubt when he set out to take the shot in question that it was meticulously planned and he already had in mind how it was going to be presented - i very much doubt he would have stuck it on Flickr in the hope that it was "explored" before deciding that it might be worth something.

Borderfox

Needs a rock in the foreground

Promac

An inflatable one like?

Thud

magicbastarder wrote: »

who'd have thought that dmitriy medvedev would make the list on the most expensive photos ever?
http://www.businessinsider.com/andreas-gursky-photo-record-most-expensive-2011-11#5-russian-president-dmitry-medvedevs-photo-kremlin-of-tobolsk-2009-sold-for-1750000-in-2010-12

you'd wonder if that was some Russian billionaire tryng to pass a bribe Medvedev in a somewhat legal manner

superflyninja

Eirebear wrote: »

The thing is though, the vast majority of photographs seen on here - are very much adapted for screen purposes.
The buyer of this image didnt purchase a 72dpi screen grab to use as his desktop wallpaper.

Presentation and format, along with the screwy artworld and the artists name all add up to the prices that people will pay for these things.

So to say it wouldnt get much attention on the internet is a wee bit naive in my opinion, Gursky has made a career out of simple repetitive patterns, straight lines and huge prints - i have no doubt when he set out to take the shot in question that it was meticulously planned and he already had in mind how it was going to be presented - i very much doubt he would have stuck it on Flickr in the hope that it was "explored" before deciding that it might be worth something.

i agree that the presentation has a huge impact. But all i have to look at is an on screen image not a monster plexiglass installation. I said that I thought the image wouldnt get as much attention on the net if you or I posted it

smash

I think it would have been great if the OP had posted the photo in a thread for c&c before saying what is was.

Gregor Samsa

As someone here in work pointed out: you could probably buy that patch of land and river for $4.3 million dollars. But that's really not the point.

Strictly as a photo, it probably wouldn't get more than 6 thanks in the Random Photo thread. I can see what the photographer is getting at: it's minimalism, and the photo wouldn't have worked at all on a nice sunny day. Also, you'd have to see it in the flesh to really judge it. Size and presentation is everything with things like this. But we're not really talking about a "photo" here.

Art doesn't necessarily have anything to do with technical merit - it's more about aesthetic quality, and aesthetics isn't necessarily to do with beauty.

On the other hand, the price of a piece or art also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it's artistic merit. That's all to do with reputation and market forces. Anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Being "worth" $4.3 million doesn't make it a better photo than anything that any of us took. I don't know much about the contemporary photo-art market, but you can bet that the people who bid this up to $4.3 million do. I'm not saying they know more about what makes a good photo than we do - but they do know more about money than us.

Is the photo worth $4.3 million? If I had a billion dollars to my name, I wouldn't buy this to hang on my wall for $45 dollars, let alone $4.3 million. I can think of countless images that deserve the the space more.

But if I thought that I could sell it for $5 or $8 million in the few years time, then yeah, of course I'd buy it. And that's what the art market (at this level) is all about.

mrboswell

I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that but that is a load of sh*t by most peoples standards...

Money to burn? Why not help bail a country out...

Eirebear

superflyninja wrote: »

i agree that the presentation has a huge impact. But all i have to look at is an on screen image not a monster plexiglass installation. I said that I thought the image wouldnt get as much attention on the net if you or I posted it

I get what your saying dude, i just think that maybe it's a little naive to judge (in both our cases) one way or another without seeing the photo as the artist intended, and as the buyer payed for.

smash wrote: »

I think it would have been great if the OP had posted the photo in a thread for c&c before saying what is was.

I'm fairly sure, although i cant find it, that something similar was done with a Cartier bresson image on Flickr a few years ago - the said image recieved very few animated gif awards.

superflyninja

Eirebear wrote: »

I get what your saying dude, i just think that maybe it's a little naive to judge (in both our cases) one way or another without seeing the photo as the artist intended, and as the buyer payed for.

Yup but not much choice in how we view it! id love to see a critique on the shot! I really like some of his other stuff.

dinneenp

superflyninja wrote: »

Yup but not much choice in how we view it! id love to see a critique on the shot! I really like some of his other stuff.

I agree, some of his other photos are excellent I think. The Bahrain F1 track springs to mind link

Iwannahurl

Mellor wrote: »

Not unless they sell

They won't sell. Too expensive. Probably priceless in fact.

superflyninja

Im quite partial to this http://www.herebeoldthings.com/images/2008/06/17/99_cent_diptychon_andreas_gursky.jpg myself

CabanSail

Do I like it?

Yeah .... I actually do. It appeals to my taste for minimal and simple compositions.

Would I buy it?

No .... but then I don't buy many images. I try to take my own.

Should someone else have paid that much for it?

Damn right they should have, as long as they aren't spending my money. If they have the funds and want to provide a source of discussion then go for it.

Is it worth the money?

Yes ..... it was paid so it must be to the purchaser.