Author Topic: Photograph sells for $4.3 million (Read 30709 times)

cathyslife · « **Reply #50 on:** November 12, 2011, 14:04 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 12, 2011, 13:34

More people aren't doing it because at its upper levels the fine art world is a closed circuit of pseuds -- artists, critics and patrons. Fine art isn't something whose value is determined by mass markets or popular acclaim. It's consensus among an in-crowd of dahlings and bullshitters that does it.

This is one thing I like about microstock. Sure, it's not fine art in any sense, but it is an artistic product that rises or falls according to its appeal and utility in a purer way than any single on the pop charts.

Well said.

Artemis · « **Reply #51 on:** November 12, 2011, 14:05 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 12, 2011, 13:34

*snip*

This is one thing I like about microstock. Sure, it's not fine art in any sense, but it is an artistic product that rises or falls according to its appeal and utility in a purer way than any single on the pop charts.

c'mon, microstock has nothing to do with an 'artistic product'; its about flat commerce, and the more commercial it is the better it sells.
It's only 'appeal' is its commercial value (and its often 'the tackier the better' too)

Elenathewise · « **Reply #52 on:** November 12, 2011, 14:10 »

Quote from: Artemis on November 12, 2011, 14:05

Quote from: RapidEye on November 12, 2011, 13:34
*snip*

This is one thing I like about microstock. Sure, it's not fine art in any sense, but it is an artistic product that rises or falls according to its appeal and utility in a purer way than any single on the pop charts.
c'mon, microstock has nothing to do with an 'artistic product'; its about flat commerce, and the more commercial it is the better it sells.
It's only 'appeal' is its commercial value (and its often 'the tackier the better' too)

Can't agree. Tacky shots sometimes sell, but a lot of microstock's bestsellers are very nice and aesthetically pleasing images.

RapidEye · « **Reply #53 on:** November 12, 2011, 14:46 »

Microstock is as artistic as any ancient Greek vase painting or medieval religious fresco. It serves much the same purpose -- to illustrate in ways that please.

Yes, it is the handmaiden of commerce and one can find plenty of fault with that, but it doesn't mean it's not artistic. As opposed to Art.

RapidEye · « **Reply #54 on:** November 12, 2011, 14:55 »

On a related note, I think the invention of photography is responsible for the peculiar rarefied condition of modern fine art. For millennia, artists strove mostly to create ever better techniques to depict people and things, but that project was suddenly destroyed. Into the vacuum marched the conceptualists.

Artemis · « **Reply #55 on:** November 12, 2011, 14:56 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 12, 2011, 14:46

Microstock is as artistic as any ancient Greek vase painting or medieval religious fresco. It serves much the same purpose -- to illustrate in ways that please.

Yes, it is the handmaiden of commerce and one can find plenty of fault with that, but it doesn't mean it's not artistic. As opposed to Art.

Likewise "art' shouldnt be judged using the same commercial driven standards as stock.

I'm not denying there's microstock work that has artistic value; but i also see very often that when someone uses a somewhat artistic lighting and slaps some filter on top of it everyone starts calling it 'art' made by a great 'artist'. It just strikes me many people only can look at photography through stock glasses.

RapidEye · « **Reply #56 on:** November 12, 2011, 15:05 »

Quote from: Artemis on November 12, 2011, 14:56

I'm not denying there's microstock work that has artistic value; but i also see very often that when someone uses a somewhat artistic lighting and slaps some filter on top of it everyone starts calling it 'art' made by a great 'artist'. It just strikes me many people only can look at photography through stock glasses.

Oh yes, we have our fair share of pseuds in microstock too. But as you can guess from my general tone, I'm sceptical about judgments of what constitutes "art".

If instead of appealing to hocus-pocus we define art as a cultural product that possesses the power to move people (possibly the only definition that makes any sense) then it's a broad funnel indeed.

Artemis · « **Reply #57 on:** November 12, 2011, 15:37 »

So essentially we don't disagree...
I love Gursky's work, think he's a great artist and like this picture too; whether its worth $4.3 million, probably not. But are Vincent Van Gogh's sunflowers worth the $39 million they sold for? Are all the great masters worth the enormous amounts payed for them?
It's an industry with artificially high prices, just like in the music, fashion, sports, etc. industries... technically its maybe, probably all not worth it, but there are peeps out there rich and crazy enough...

RapidEye · « **Reply #58 on:** November 12, 2011, 16:53 »

Quote from: Artemis on November 12, 2011, 15:37

So essentially we don't disagree...
I love Gursky's work, think he's a great artist and like this picture too; whether its worth $4.3 million, probably not. But are Vincent Van Gogh's sunflowers worth the $39 million they sold for? Are all the great masters worth the enormous amounts payed for them?
It's an industry with artificially high prices, just like in the music, fashion, sports, etc. industries... technically its maybe, probably all not worth it, but there are peeps out there rich and crazy enough...

Sunflowers is probably the second most famous picture in the world. Such celebrity is bound to command a fearsome price. This Gursky? Not so famous. I confess I'd never seen his work until now. Some of it looks nice enough but it doesn't blow me away. This particular image ... well ... if I'd shot it I wouldn't have bothered to print it.

If any photo was going to set a world auction record I'd have expected it to be one of the well-known ones by legendary dead photographers. That this one commands the top price is just weird.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #59 on:** November 12, 2011, 16:59 »

I am so so upset. I deleted a better version off my camera. I could have even added a person with a release.

rinderart · « **Reply #60 on:** November 12, 2011, 17:24 »

What do we think of this womans work. she sells out and also sells out her books.

http://www.susanmikula.com/

qwerty · « **Reply #61 on:** November 12, 2011, 17:47 »

Quote from: rinderart on November 12, 2011, 17:24

What do we think of this womans work. she sells out and also sells out her books.

http://www.susanmikula.com/

Well based on going rates probably $3.5Million

RacePhoto · « **Reply #62 on:** November 12, 2011, 18:22 »

Quote from: rinderart on November 12, 2011, 17:24

What do we think of this womans work. she sells out and also sells out her books.

http://www.susanmikula.com/

I have some old faded Ansco 2 1/4 slides, with mold and fungus, I might be rich! They are sharper and have better colors... Maybe someone can explain a blurry, yellow and green portrait, out of focus, with no message that I can see except, it's what it is.

Let me just say, it's "Art" $$$ and when people find something they like $$$ and it has a name $$$, it sells $$$. There's no explaining why. Might be some wealthy Sheep / Lemming cloned mutations can explain it.

Yes, add me to the Jackson Pollack fans, from way back. My real artist friends call him Jack The Dripper. But I don't own one of his painting for millions, I just appreciate it.

cobalt · « **Reply #63 on:** November 12, 2011, 18:44 »

I live by the rhine, i walk past it every week. Why am I not rich?

click_click · « **Reply #64 on:** November 12, 2011, 18:45 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 12, 2011, 18:44

I live by the rhine, i walk past it every week. Why am I not rich?

Because you always forget to take your P&S with you when you leave the house.

cobalt · « **Reply #65 on:** November 12, 2011, 18:47 »

My iPhone should be enough...;-) Now all I need is a gallery and a pompous or mysterious name.

ETA: Actually there is something very interesting about the image: the rhine is a huge, huge river. But he managed to choose an angle where it looks comparable to the size of the bicycle path.

But 4.3. million??? Must be a tax thing.

cathyslife · « **Reply #66 on:** November 12, 2011, 18:50 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 12, 2011, 18:47

My iPhone should be enough...;-) Now all I need is a gallery and a pompous or mysterious name.

LOL

jbarber873 · « **Reply #67 on:** November 12, 2011, 21:16 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 11, 2011, 15:47

Quote from: jbarber873 on November 11, 2011, 14:48
I saw the Gursky show at MOMA, and thought it was great. The presentation is key- very large prints of excellent quality. As with all modern art, a large element is the concept and the "shock of the new". However, I think I will spend my millions elsewhere, or even my 50 thousands. ( Sorry, Race! )

I have difficulty with the very idea of art, at least the modern conceptual kind. Seems that if you say you're an artist, and you do the right brown-nosing and self-promotion, you might strike it lucky and end up with work worth millions. Much of what gets lionised as art just comes off as silly in its desperate eagerness to be novel. Of course Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin come to mind.

Until fairly recently in human history there was no notion of art in the modern sense. It was just illustration and decoration, and a lot more decorative it was too.

I understand your point of view. There's a book that Tom Wolfe wrote quite a while ago called "The Painted Word", which goes into great detail about the movers and shakers of the art world, and how critics began turning the art world toward the concept instead of the technique. For me, modern art has always been interesting. I never really had much exposure to it until I came to work in NY as an assistant, and used to go to the museums on the free night. To me, the work was new and exciting, clever and thought provoking. This was the late 70's, with the punk scene and crime and craziness all over. Modern art seemed so exact, precise. As they say, art is in the eye of the beholder, so I just happened to be at the right place for it. As for paying millions of dollars for a Gursky, this says more about the concentration of wealth among the uber rich more than it does about the art. As an investment, art has a much better track record than just about anything else, so maybe that's the thought behind it.

RapidEye · « **Reply #68 on:** November 13, 2011, 02:25 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on November 12, 2011, 21:16

I understand your point of view. There's a book that Tom Wolfe wrote quite a while ago called "The Painted Word", which goes into great detail about the movers and shakers of the art world, and how critics began turning the art world toward the concept instead of the technique. For me, modern art has always been interesting. I never really had much exposure to it until I came to work in NY as an assistant, and used to go to the museums on the free night. To me, the work was new and exciting, clever and thought provoking. This was the late 70's, with the punk scene and crime and craziness all over. Modern art seemed so exact, precise. As they say, art is in the eye of the beholder, so I just happened to be at the right place for it. As for paying millions of dollars for a Gursky, this says more about the concentration of wealth among the uber rich more than it does about the art. As an investment, art has a much better track record than just about anything else, so maybe that's the thought behind it.

And I understand your point of view. Perhaps I'd be less cynical if my first exposure to this kind of stuff had been in New York instead of a provincial African city, where presumably the cleverness quotient was lower, even if the time and the social backdrop were similar. Still, it seems to me that the ultimate expression of conceptual art might be a blank gallery wall with a tag describing what the work would have been, had the artist troubled to make it. I must give that Tom Wolfe a read.

I'm sure you're right about the stinking rich and art prices. There are plenty of people for whom $4.3 million is pocket change. Two such bidders at an auction could send a price stratospheric for no good reason.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #69 on:** November 13, 2011, 04:01 »

I had the good fortune to be able to stand in a gallery and examine this painting at close quarters for as long as I liked.

www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/ast/flowers-rijks/flowers-rijks.jpg
The quality was simply incomparable with anything I had seen before and I don't believe anybody could doubt that it is a remarkable masterpiece (interestingly, for school art classes, it is a composite created from studies of different flowers made at different times, not a real scene). How the art community can go from recognising work at that level to imagining that the Rhine photo has any merit is really beyond me. It's really a sign of the decadence of the art crowd. who are no longer capable of understanding what they are seeing.

I do wonder whether photography is capable of producing work at the level of the Old Masters, or if the medium itself is too limiting. Even if it is limited, the art market is obviously looking in the wrong direction when it applauds stuff like this. Surely, the main criterion for judging worth should be whether one would want to live with something. Scarcity and name recognition are secondary to how enjoyable a work actually is.

lagereek · « **Reply #70 on:** November 13, 2011, 08:36 »

I dont know what to say? sure the geometry/composition, etc, is brillant but 4 million bucks? astonishing.

Mantis · « **Reply #71 on:** November 13, 2011, 09:51 »

Quote from: rinderart on November 12, 2011, 17:24

What do we think of this womans work. she sells out and also sells out her books.

http://www.susanmikula.com/

They look like frames from surveillance video.

madelaide · « **Reply #72 on:** November 13, 2011, 10:42 »

The price is absurd, as in any of these expensive works anyway. Even the best Picasso or Van Gogh works should never be worth so much, unless it was something very unique or historical (like "Guernica") and even then thevalue would be questionable.

Anyway, looking at the art aspect of the image, it is interesting. The parallel lines in different colors, I can imagine that hanging on a wall (though not my wall).

We can not make any parallel between art photography and stock photography in terms of value, IMHO. These are different markets.

Mr. Stock · « **Reply #73 on:** November 15, 2011, 12:03 »

We all live in a Gursky world.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #74 on:** November 15, 2011, 13:17 »

Quote from: madelaide on November 13, 2011, 10:42

The price is absurd, as in any of these expensive works anyway. Even the best Picasso or Van Gogh works should never be worth so much, unless it was something very unique

Yeah, well, every Picasso is unique. Surely that's one of the points with painted art. But I presume the negative of this dreary Rhine scene still exists and a new, huge print can be stamped out tomorrow.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photograph sells for $4.3 million (Read 30709 times)

cathyslife

Artemis

Elenathewise

RapidEye

RapidEye

Artemis

RapidEye

Artemis

RapidEye

markrhiggins

rinderart

qwerty

RacePhoto

cobalt

click_click

cobalt

cathyslife

jbarber873

RapidEye

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

Mantis

madelaide

Mr. Stock

BaldricksTrousers

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors