A fool and his money.....

peterm1

peterm1

Veteran
Local time
4:48 AM
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
7,973
View My Gallery
I was having a look at the web site below (quite a nice little blog by Thomas Pidelski although with some too forceful views occasionally) when I came across this article about the record price of $4.3M set for a photo taken by Andreas Gursky a few years ago.

http://pindelski.org/Photography/2011/12/22/scam/

I agree with Pidelski that its not something I would pay much for, even assuming I had a few million at my disposal to throw around on art.

It set me thinking about making a post here about other over-rated (and over-expensive) photos / photographers.

In line with that thought, I would have to add in my opinion that I am no fan of Gregory Crewdson (even though he was nice enough to come to my home city of Adelaide Down Under to run a Masterclass in photography - Kudo's for that!).

http://gregoryackland.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/gregory-crewdson-masterclass-adelaide.html

Not perhaps in the same class of Gursky for making a bizarre image that pulls in millions but I never the less feel his work too often to be a kind of photographic kitsch and somewhat overblown in that he often has an entire film crew which he "directs". I don't think he usually even presses the shutter button. But there is no doubt he is responsible for the resulting images.

And I have to say I just don't "get" his images as art - they are just so obviously contrived and set up (maybe that's the point and I am missing it) . To be honest I don't have too much problem with the approach of using a film crew to take a photo (although its the kind of overblown idea that the art world loves - parallels here with great classic painters and sculptors of the renaissance) but it's the results I really take issue with or to be more accurate don't "tickle my fancy". Maybe I am wrong and he has something others get that I am plumb too dumb or unsophisticated to see. Maybe not.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...sEcvFkQWE74CACg&ved=0CGQQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=867

Thomas Pidelski the blog author above says "a fool and his money are soon parted". I would be a little kinder and just say......"There is no accounting for taste" (Which can be interpreted as - taste: some got it and some aint!) And I suppose to be fair I would have to add on behalf of the artist, "Nice work if you can get it" (Which can be interpreted as - if you are smart enough to separate wealthy and foolish patrons from their pelf then, "good on you" as we Aussies say.)

I would like to hear you examples of least-favorite images and photographers that you think to be excessively appreciated by the art world but please keep your opinions polite and your comments proportionate - no abuse please and lets not see this delve into the depths of negativity by at least providing some reasons.

Or if you prefer, educate me and tell me I am wrong and that it's must be one of the great art works in the past century. (Ahem)
 
I went to a lecture in Atlanta at the High museum where Thomas Struth and the director of MOMA spoke and presented an exhibition of Struth's images. It was mainly an hour if the MOMA director gushing over Struth and Struth BSing the audience. His images were large and IMO very unimpressive. I guess if you can't do them great do them big. Besides the unimpressive images Struth was a total jerk to my friend that I was there with. Struth did however turn his charm on for the wealthy old women that contribute heavily to the High.
 
Hmm, easy way to start a flame war, but I'll bite anyway.

HCB: Dude jumps over a puddle. If someone took that photo today, we'd probably think it was a nice moment, and forget it. Now, I know HCB was not about one photo, and we're meant to appreciate the whole portfolio/legacy/collection. I'm just not seeing the big deal.

But that's the whole thing isn't it? There is no accounting for taste, and I'm sure many here will scarcely be able to believe that I don't see much merit in HCB's photos, but I guess sometimes people's viewpoints are so far apart that there really is no understanding them from the outside.
 
What does anyone care what other people spend their money on? It's their money. I've probably wasted more money, relative to my income that whoever bought this Gursky print.

So what....big deal.
 
thegman said:
Hmm, easy way to start a flame war, but I'll bite anyway.

HCB: Dude jumps over a puddle. If someone took that photo today, we'd probably think it was a nice moment, and forget it. Now, I know HCB was not about one photo, and we're meant to appreciate the whole portfolio/legacy/collection. I'm just not seeing the big deal.

But that's the whole thing isn't it? There is no accounting for taste, and I'm sure many here will scarcely be able to believe that I don't see much merit in HCB's photos, but I guess sometimes people's viewpoints are so far apart that there really is no understanding them from the outside.
Click to expand...

I must admit I never saw that much in this particular image by HCB myself. I always thought it to be over rated. But then again I admit it has to be seen in its historical context I suppose. Back then it was still unusual for photographers to be carrying around "miniature" cameras and making images that capture so well a moment in time. Cameras were big bulky things and people had to pose. These days its so taken for granted that this image can be regarded as passe. About 2 years ago there was a HCB retrospective in Australia. I went and have to say that I though there were many more better photos by HCB than some he is best known for. That is to say before I saw all of this collection I was a bit inclined as you are that I did not see much merit in his photos. But when I saw the whole collection I want wow he really was a good as they say. But maybe that's just me.
 
what you missed with hcb was that it was a genre that had no history. He is idolized less as each new photographer might amaze but he was the first (documented) for his kind of photography. His photographs represent all those that came after his and that is his achievement. If you look at art you must understand that it has many angles of view and some are about the time they were taken or painted and might have no bearing on time as it is now but wouldn't exist without the time before it.

My own irk is Peter Lik and the supposed AU$1M sale to an anonymous private art collector (wink wink, nudge nudge)

I will never forget this morning for the rest of my life. It was calm, and the scent of the fall forest filled my lungs. The mist cleared, and a magical reflection in the river briefly appeared. White birch trees, black trunks, a kaleidoscope of foliage combining to reveal an illusion of three dimensions. I pressed the shutter – once – and then the scene vanished with the morning breeze, never to be seen again.”

Sales pitch anyone? Of course the unexpected result was that all his other photos were suddenly worth more.
 
Just did a search to find out if the buyer was ever named. They usually do and cannot resist to declare what great art is worth but found this instead ...

Soon enough, they realized that having the $25+k Artist Proofs (AP) helped sell the $3k and $4k pieces. Someone would fall in love with a piece that was being showed as an AP and be told is was $32,000! Their heart sank knowing they could not afford that, and then they’d offer you a “regular edition” piece for only $3700. What a bargain! You were sold.

http://scottreither.com/blogwp/2012/06/11/peter-lik-gallery-photographer-my-story/
 
michaelwj said:
Maybe size matters?
The Gursky is HUGE! 1.8 x 3.6 m. I hear it is super detailed and look amazing in person. Still, its a lot of cash.

Michael
Click to expand...

If I were to run downtown tomorrow, take a picture of the Mississippi river with my mamiya 6 x 7 and have it blown up, how much could I get for it? Pictures from the mamiya are very detailed. I'm not quite as well known as Gursky (who's Gursky?); I would settle for maybe $500,000. 😀

No, huh? How about if I throw in a shot of the Missouri river as well? I live about 1/2 hour from the Mississippi, and maybe 45 minuted from the Missouri. No trouble at all, really. 😛
 
thegman said:
Hmm, easy way to start a flame war, but I'll bite anyway.

HCB: Dude jumps over a puddle. If someone took that photo today, we'd probably think it was a nice moment, and forget it. Now, I know HCB was not about one photo, and we're meant to appreciate the whole portfolio/legacy/collection. I'm just not seeing the big deal.

But that's the whole thing isn't it? There is no accounting for taste, and I'm sure many here will scarcely be able to believe that I don't see much merit in HCB's photos, but I guess sometimes people's viewpoints are so far apart that there really is no understanding them from the outside.
Click to expand...

IMO HCB's beauty is that he had a knack for getting those moments with a consistency, and that he did it in the "old days", when taking each frame meant a lot more. He does shoot prolifically, so I guess it's not magic but just exploring every possibility in every scene.

I don't admire him as much as the other street masters, but I think there is beauty in his photos, especially if you look at them as part of a portfolio. I know I would be very proud if I could deliver a large body of work on par with his quality with modern digital bodies...and I think that speaks about HCB's prowess as a photographer.

As for Rhine II - I don't know what to make of it. But had I taken the photo I would have though "ah, another wasted shot".
 
peterm1 said:
Or if you prefer, educate me and tell me I am wrong and that it's must be one of the great art works in the past century. (Ahem)
Click to expand...

First, you have to remember that the price for the Gursky was achieved on the secondary market. Gursky's not actually asking for $4M for his prints. The high price for the Rhein II picture was probably a result of multiple factors, like the fact that most of the other prints in the edition are in the hands of museums, that it's a Gursky picture at the height of a photographic practice that has basically dominated the past 20 years in photography, and lasty - and this is my own opinion - that it resembles minimal art which makes it more relatable for the art buying crowd who would otherwise not spend this kind of money on photography.

I agree with you on Crewdson. I really want to like his work but I just can't. It's just too much of everything. His Dioramas from the 90s have some appeal, though, in a kitschy Twin Peaks intro sequence kind of way.

As for your premise "a fool and his money", let's be realistic for a minute. This whole development is simply a result of a massive concentration of wealth in a very tiny segment of the population. It's not likely that the person who bought the Gursky has only a few million lying around and is investing it in one photograph. It's more likely that he/she (though we all know it's probably a "he") has a billion in their bank account so at this point it doesn't really matter if they spend a few million on something that they want. They have more money than they can spend anyways.
 
thegman said:
HCB: Dude jumps over a puddle. If someone took that photo today, we'd probably think it was a nice moment, and forget it.
Click to expand...
A bit off topic - I watched an interview with HCB. The puddle photo was taken through the planks of a fence. Only the lens of his camera fit between the planks and he was unable to see what he was photographing.
He did not see the man jumping the puddle. I searched for the video titled "Luck and Geometry" but it is no longer available anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Burning Kodachrome slides and erasing history
Replies
8
Views
498
Dogman
Dogman
caila77
letters to a young photographer - the meaning of photography
Replies
2
Views
257
boojum
boojum
Godfrey
A pleasant few moments today ...
Replies
3
Views
356
chuckroast
C
peterm1
The show must go on. Theatre, Circus and similar events
Replies
9
Views
1K
dexdog
dexdog
A
The mystery photographer of '60s San Francisco and undeveloped Kodachrome
Replies
16
Views
1K
bcostin
bcostin
Back
Top Bottom