$$$

No rage just amazed at the stupidity of those who would pay so much for these photos. Even so I will defend their right to spend their money how they please until the end of time. Bravo.
 
What surprises me is how recent most of those photographs were created. I would have though older photographs by established masters of photography would fetch higher prices. Most of these photographers are still working. That's a lot of money to gamble on these artists continuing to increase in value (both historically and monetarily).
 
I adore Cindy Sherman's work. And I'm sure Gursky's work is more impressive in person, particularly the supermarket and stock market ones. I can't get behind photoshopping, though.
 
What was that about "fools and their money?"

Of the whole lot, I'd take the Weston and the Steichen...
 
I always rather liked the big #1 until I read this in the link...

"...Sold in New York, 2011, the most expensive photograph ever sold is actually heavily edited and Photoshoped. Gursky says he removed many of the elements such as buildings and trees that were damaging to the composition..."

I had no idea.
 
Samouraï said:
I adore Cindy Sherman's work. And I'm sure Gursky's work is more impressive in person, particularly the supermarket and stock market ones. I can't get behind photoshopping, though.
Click to expand...

"Gursky says he removed many of the elements such as buildings and trees that were damaging to the composition."

Educational -- I have some of my own where I'd have to photoshop everything out then.

I didn't see sizes listed, but I believe the Gurskys and the Jeff Wall are quite large. Billy the Kid probably wins on cost per square inch:)
 
Last edited:
I don't see anything special in 1,2,4,5,9 (from most to less expensive), definitely not enough to demand that much green.


EDIT: I just noticed that photos 1, 4 & 5 are by the same photographer - safe to say I don't like Mr. Gursky's work :D
 
Gursky is an enigma. I assume his images are much more impressive in real life than on the small screen.

The Edward Weston image is wonderful.

Some of the others make no sense to me.
 
That Medvedev pic is so pedestrian. So, OK, it was for fundraising. But Rhein II makes my heart race with enthusiasm by comparison.

.
 
Really like #2 and #10. I can see how they all sold, but not quite for that much. I wonder what has happened to other collectable photos after the Great Recession?

When I worked for LaSalle Bank in Chicago they had one of the most amazing photographic collects outside of museums. I helped the group that managed it out with some computer stuff (I worked in IT) and got to see a lot of it. Wondering if it's still intact, if it went with the Bank when Bank of America bought them or if it's been split up and sold.

Unbelievable prices. More power to the collectors and those who have the negatives.....

B2
 
burancap said:
I always rather liked the big #1 until I read this in the link...

"...Sold in New York, 2011, the most expensive photograph ever sold is actually heavily edited and Photoshoped. Gursky says he removed many of the elements such as buildings and trees that were damaging to the composition..."

I had no idea.
Click to expand...

Do you not like it anymore?
Is a photoshopped image no longer art?

It brings up a wider question relating to photographers and artists. I was at an exhibition on the weekend and the artist said her partner took the photos. This got me thinking, she was not the photographer (at least not in the copyright sense) but she was clearly the artist. Just food for thought.

Back on topic, I wonder if the traditional greats like AA are not values because they printed too much?

Michael
 
photomoof said:
She is the copyright holder if there is an agreement. Otherwise they are joint holders.

"The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright
in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary" http://copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
Click to expand...

Of course one would assume there was such an agreement. Without such an agreement though, it depends on the country. In Australia, where she is from, the person who takes the image holds copyright of the image by default.
However, the larger topic we were discussing was at what time does the original image turn into art?

Cheers,
Michael
 
michaelwj said:
Do you not like it anymore?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I do not know yet. It was not an immediate "I hate this." Rather, it was more of a feeling of being duped. I don't have much more comment yet as I have intentionally not sought out looking at the photograph again. I need some time to clear my thoughts and look at it again, fresh.

michaelwj said:
Is a photoshopped image no longer art?
Click to expand...

I think that anything can be classified as art. I guess that I like knowing the medium(s) involved, whatever they might be, as much as I like the end product. To me, successful art is not determined only by what it says to me, but how the artist may have mastered a particular medium. So, to the point of the big Gursky: Did he photograph it? Did he do the Photoshop work? Is he a master of photography, of Photoshop, or both ... or neither??? Perhaps that is why I feel the way I do with my first response above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom