« Time for a Poll | Main | 'Everywhere You Look, There's Always a Gursky' »

Wednesday, 09 November 2011


jamie t,
That was fascinating. Thanks for that.


Good ol' Wikipedia says:
"New York's Museum of Modern Art called the artist's work, "a sophisticated art of unembellished observation.""
Just like the pictures I take then ...

GIno, I think quite a number of us are thoroughly creeped out by the actual art world. So at one level, yeah, it's nice a photographer is being successful. And, as I said earlier, I find some interest in the photo, and expect it'd be even more interesting if I saw the big physical print. But at another level, it's appalling that anybody is paying millions of dollars for that image.

I do like the picture but if I could afford it I wouldn't buy it I'd buy that really big Leica to see if it's any good (I'd probably still use my GF1 more though).

What bothers me is that things like this undermine what should really be a core of photography: infinite reproducibility. In my own humble opinion of course. I think that prints should be made over and over again limited only by consumer demand, time, manufacturing capacity and the tolerance of the original negative/file even if those prints are massive. A lot of artistic methods are limiting in this regard due to their nature but with photography it's a pseudo-market and I find it perverse and perverting of the medium.

Of course I don't make any money from photography, and I'm a grouch.

"Sure—status plus rarity."

Within status, artist's "art-speak" skills...?

Dear DD-B,

So I'm guessing you'd feel as creeped out by stamp and coin collectors (the most valuable artifacts in their fields are priced about the same)and buyers of old paintings (which routinely go for prices well above this)?

pax / Ctein

I agree with what Andrew and GIno have said. This article tells me more about the TOP readership than anything else - bitterness embodied. I'm saddened.

Maybe anyone of us could have taken that picture. Maybe. But did we? No! Did we manage to do it and to actually show it to the world? No, we did not. And yet, what do we seem to think about the guy who did it after years of consistent work and steady identity building process? That his work is not good enough to meet our standards. This is absolutely insane. It's not about how good it looks! This is the work of an artist who developed his own language/style and somehow managed to show it to the world throughout years of hard work. Anybody complaining about the colors/composition/whatever is missing the whole point...

Seems that the sale of Rhein-II for a record price also triggered some journalists. A Dutch newspaper had an article today about the 10 most expensive photographs: http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2676/Cultuur/article/detail/3031883/2011/11/13/De-10-duurste-foto-s-van-de-wereld.dhtml (in Dutch, but Google translate is your friend, and the list of the 10 photos doesn't need translation :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.