Author Topic: Photograph sells for $4.3 million (Read 4687 times)

cclapper · « **on:** November 11, 2011, 06:33 »

This was on Yahoo news this morning. It just goes to show that you never know what photograph will be a best-seller or will capture someone's eye.

http://news.yahoo.com/record-photo-sold-auction-set-nyc-182745446.html

NEW YORK (AP) — A 1999 photograph of the Rhine river by German artist Andreas Gursky has sold for $4.3 million in New York City, setting a record for any photograph sold at auction.

Titled "Rhein II," the chromogenic color print face-mounted to acrylic glass, had a pre-sale estimate of $2.5 million to $3.5 million.

It sold Tuesday at Christie's. The buyer was not disclosed.

The previous record for any photography sold at auction was Cindy Sherman's "Untitled," which fetched $3.8 million at Christie's in May.

Gursky's panoramic image of the Rhine is one of an edition of six photographs. Four are in major museums, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York and the Tate Modern in London.

nicku · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:46 »

One sale at this sum and i will certainly retire...

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:46 »

Words fail me.

dreamstock · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:49 »

would this photo be accepted by any of stock agencies?

RapidEye · « **Reply #4 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:51 »

Had to check it wasn't April Fool's Day.

jm · « **Reply #5 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:53 »

This world goes crazy. My father shoots similar images and I delete his images from camera.

Oligo · « **Reply #6 on:** November 11, 2011, 06:54 »

It is not about a photo that was sold, but about money that was given...

frank_photocase · « **Reply #7 on:** November 11, 2011, 07:04 »

Quote from: dreamstock on November 11, 2011, 06:49

would this photo be accepted by any of stock agencies?

absolutely!

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #8 on:** November 11, 2011, 07:08 »

The sale price may well be too high, but could also be an investment when the author is famous, especially in the current European economic situation. If I had $4.3 million to spend, I'd certainly buy art, not bonds or shares.

And we must aknowledge that art and stock are different things. As a piece of art, I like that photo: the old saying "less is more" comes to my mind. Printed at 81 x 140 inches (info found elsewhere on the internet) it must look impressive in the living room as a background for your next party's electronic dj-set.

OM · « **Reply #9 on:** November 11, 2011, 07:24 »

Phew. What a relief............the bankster and hedge fund managers bonuses must still be intact.

Not so much about the photo but look how I outbid everyone.

sjlocke · « **Reply #10 on:** November 11, 2011, 07:24 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on November 11, 2011, 07:08

And we must aknowledge that art and stock are different things. As a piece of art, I like that photo: the old saying "less is more" comes to my mind. Printed at 81 x 140 inches (info found elsewhere on the internet) it must look impressive in the living room as a background for your next party dj-set.

We're talking about the same snapshot, yes?

http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/0dc50e8548d51d19fe0e6a706700f3b1.jpg

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #11 on:** November 11, 2011, 07:30 »

Yes, compare it with a normal picture of a river from a similar point of view, such as my own "Picture of River Elbe in Dessau, Germany" below.

In my photo there are a lot of distracting elements such as trees and clouds and shadows and the path and grass in front, and it's nothing as simple and pure. And blue skies are boring (although stock sites like them). That's why you can have have it for just 25 EUR. However, it's still a bargain if you lost that auction!

http://www.mostphotos.com/921411/river-elbe

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** November 11, 2011, 07:35 »

The main problem with your photo is that the light isn't flat enough.

cclapper · « **Reply #13 on:** November 11, 2011, 08:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 11, 2011, 07:35

The main problem with your photo is that the light isn't flat enough.

I understand what you mean about the simplicity of the photo, as art, and I agree, but $4.3 million? Really?

RT · « **Reply #14 on:** November 11, 2011, 08:50 »

I love reading stories where somebody in the "art" world is stupid enough to pay this much money for a low quality snapshot, what's even more enjoyable is knowing that the buyer will be discussing the artistic virtues of this photo whilst any educated person will be laughing at them. What would make it even better is to discover it was taken by the guys dog on his cameraphone.

click_click · « **Reply #15 on:** November 11, 2011, 09:02 »

It's not about the image itself or the quality of it. Artists like that are like industries, they have funding and lobbyists that push their work into galleries and claim artistic value.

Obviously Gursky's approach is to cram a wide angle view or many subjects into an image. It's not a very sophisticated, artistic approach IMHO. It certainly is not a lot of work. However, it's his trademark.

How could anyone come up with a price for an image and claim it's worth millions? What justifies a price like that? Nothing.

All you have to do is to find a buyer that has more money than sanity and convince them that this is the best shiznick in the world...

Difydave · « **Reply #16 on:** November 11, 2011, 09:11 »

If we can't see it's value as art, then it must be because we don't understand it.

At least that's what I was told by someone in a gallery once.

OM · « **Reply #17 on:** November 11, 2011, 09:17 »

Quote from: Difydave on November 11, 2011, 09:11

If we can't see it's value as art, then it must be because we don't understand it.

Or.........You obviously don't have enough money to make it worth my while talking to you. Greater fools to fleece! G'day!

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** November 11, 2011, 09:26 »

Quote from: cclapper on November 11, 2011, 08:40

Quote from: ShadySue on November 11, 2011, 07:35
The main problem with your photo is that the light isn't flat enough.

I understand what you mean about the simplicity of the photo, as art, and I agree, but $4.3 million? Really?

Oh, that wasn't me. I think the photo is pretty bad, putting it mildly. And it lacks my signature horizon tilt.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #19 on:** November 11, 2011, 09:49 »

My daughter just identified the genre and value: "Cr@p" and "nothing". I guess she'll never get a job at Christie's (nor will I).

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #20 on:** November 11, 2011, 10:00 »

Fine example of Limited Commercial Value.

cidepix · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2011, 10:02 »

Stupidity has no limits.. Some people just have money to burn!

Gooner · « **Reply #22 on:** November 11, 2011, 10:11 »

Gursky has a lot of really impressive photographs in his portfolio.

This is not one of them...

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #23 on:** November 11, 2011, 10:31 »

Quote from: cidepix on November 11, 2011, 10:02

Stupidity has no limits.. Some people just have money to burn!

At least if he burnt his money he would have got a warm feeling. According to this, the photo was bought from a collector by a collector, so the photographer won't get anything.

However, if the photographer rummages through his hard drive, I'm sure he could find a photo at least twice as good and therefore sell it off for 8.6 million.

LSD72 · « **Reply #24 on:** November 11, 2011, 10:40 »

Hmmm, what to do? Throw my hands up and give up... or go on the hunt for a blind rich person?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors - 4 spots

Author Topic: Photograph sells for $4.3 million (Read 4687 times)

cclapper

nicku

ShadySue

dreamstock

RapidEye

jm

Oligo

frank_photocase

microstockphoto.co.uk

OM

sjlocke

microstockphoto.co.uk

ShadySue

cclapper

RT

click_click

Difydave

OM

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

WarrenPrice

cidepix

Gooner

Microstock Posts

LSD72

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors