Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by RnR, Nov 10, 2011.
The Most Expensive Photos Ever Sold
Am I missing something?
how about the phone number of his agent!!!....thats what I call a good salesman
Apparently $4.338 million less Christie's commission ...
Well the photo's definitely missing something - like erm, something interesting.
And I see he also got the number 3 spot - third most expensive picture - for a blurry shot or 2 inside a store. $3.3 mill for that dogs breakfast. What's goin on??
This is why I'll never be rich. This would have been deleted off my hard drive long ago...
had one like that - threw it away.
What is the world coming to?? How do I get in touch with his agent / the gallery that promoted this.
What was his name again................Mr R Ipoff
He must have had his brother in law driving up the bidding for this...
+1. I find this reassuring, in fact. If this photo is worth $4mln+, I am a very rich man because each pic in my portfolio should be at least 10mln.
Wow, tough crowd. I really like it. The dollar amount is meaningless. Whomever bought that uses $100 bills as toilet paper.
If you guys saw it in person, you'd understand Andreas Gursky's work. It's 6x14 feet, and it's a huge stitch made up of many large-format film shots. Once he has his image in the computer, he will go through and edit individual pixels to tweak the image to his liking, and this is with the maximum Photoshop filesize of 300,000 x 300,000 (he may even use more than one file for his images). There's just as much of a photo from 20 feet away as there is from 6 inches away.
Read up on him:
MoMA.org | Interactives | Exhibitions | 2001 | Andreas Gursky
Andreas Gursky - Matthew Marks Gallery
Andreas Gursky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If there is an artist that is being displayed the world over in the finest museums that we have, and selling the most expensive photographs ever made, and you're not seeing why, then obviously there's something that you must be missing. Haven't you guys heard of google?
This New York Mag critic must be eating his words, after what he wrote 4 years ago:
Andreas Gursky -- New York Magazine Art Review
By the way, the #3 photo isn't just some blurry shot. Don't confuse an up-rezzed image on some website for the artist's work. This just reinforces, don't keep all those photos cooped up on your hard drive! Edit them to your liking, send them to your favorite printer, and enjoy the tangible photos! There's a certain quality you just don't get looking at a miniaturization of your photographs on an LCD screen. I like Holland Imaging in Austin, since they are local, but there are a ton of great printers. Get your photos up on your wall! A doctor friend of mine has many of his own prints, and those of friends, adorning his office. It makes it a wonderful place to visit. There's even a place in California, I think, that will make silver gelatin prints of digital files!
Here's a slightly better representation of 99 Cent II from this webpage, although still not representative of the immense scale 7x11 foot original:
Andreas Gursky’s Giant Photos : ‘the 99 Cent II Diptychon’ « CreARTion
dunno.. even if its good to see in person, I'm not sure whether I'd like to have a picture of a supermarket in my house or gallery even. I rather have Charles Cramers print.
or maybe I just can't afford it..
Thanks for clarifying.
STILL... Are you paying for the image, or the brand? I get his other pictures, and why they may have sold for bajillions, but this?
I'm sure you were just being flip; but he's an artist, not a brand. Even at this small size, I like it. But I like minimalist landscapes. Can you imagine what this must look like filling a wall?
Obviously it has sold for more than a similar one would (if one existed) by a lesser known artists.
Brands manufacture multiple copies of the same thing most of the time guaranteeing a declining value. An artists creates an individual piece that may be imitated, but never truly duplicated. If it is good enough, it will appreciate in value (at least to those who appreciate it).
I like this thread. To me it points out the obvious that I had noticed from my years working as a photographer.... photographers that are very much into things like talking about equipment all the time, pixel peeping etc. seldom "get" art. It wasn't a surprise that most on this thread think that Gursky's work is dumb. The other side of that is fine art people usually feel the same about technical photographers, they don't get the fascination with equipment.
One thing that this thread should teach everyone though is to decide on your photographic style, stick to it and create as much work as you can.
I like this guy's work. He's photographing seemingly mundane, everyday subjects that at first, seem from a far almost abstract. Then the closer you get, more and more detail is revealed. I'd love to see those prints in person.
Probably go down well in a mental institution as they are the only ones that can fathom it out and see real meaning in it other than the photographer.
The size and work involved in editing to my mind still does nothing to justify the price paid for a photo of a river with blown out sky, and rows of items on supermarket shelves not what I would class as Fine Art, but I guess I must be living in another dimension!
It reminds me of a certain piece of work that won fame in a UK gallery and has made the artist? a lot of money - it was called "My bed".............................!
The justification is that someone was willing to pay that price for it, nothing more.
I agree. I'm thinking to print my pictures myself. But in this economy its hard to justify the cost if the picture doesn't sell. But then again.. maybe I can sell it for $4,335.00 a pop
The company you're talking about is DigitalSilverImaging. They make color prints too now.
Separate names with a comma.