interesting Gursky article
- Thread starter lynnb
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 62
- Views 6K
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'm not sure Charlie how different your work would be when viewing a print against viewing online, but I really don't feel anyone can have anything worthwhile saying if they haven't seen Gursky's work in the flesh. They really are a different thing up close.
I found them quite mesmerising, they create their own atmosphere that's difficult to describe really, but they're art works that use part of the photographic process, I didn't see them as photographs in themselves.
I found them quite mesmerising, they create their own atmosphere that's difficult to describe really, but they're art works that use part of the photographic process, I didn't see them as photographs in themselves.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Bobby,
I am not saying I find nothing in Gursky's work, but I do value unique personal vision over strategy and concept in any art. In the end. it's what speaks to each of us. I was merely pointing out the irony that the curators I showed my work to in the 1990s devaluied it because it was seamless collage ,and now the most valued photograph in the world is being praised for the same quality. Peter's comment suggested the work of any photographer who was critical of his work, would only serve to reinforce Gursky's position. I just wanted to show that you can use high technical skill with the medium and say something meaningful as well, not just create an atmosphere. Nothing wrong with atmosphere, but it does not trump meaning for me.
I am not saying I find nothing in Gursky's work, but I do value unique personal vision over strategy and concept in any art. In the end. it's what speaks to each of us. I was merely pointing out the irony that the curators I showed my work to in the 1990s devaluied it because it was seamless collage ,and now the most valued photograph in the world is being praised for the same quality. Peter's comment suggested the work of any photographer who was critical of his work, would only serve to reinforce Gursky's position. I just wanted to show that you can use high technical skill with the medium and say something meaningful as well, not just create an atmosphere. Nothing wrong with atmosphere, but it does not trump meaning for me.
bobbyrab
Well-known
Just curious Charlie, have you ever seen a Gursky print up close?
Peter_wrote:
Well-known
thanks for sharing. interesting work. but i think it doesn't make much sense, to compare it with the work of other artists, and make some kind of competition, which is "better". especially when they are so different, made with different intentions.
my comment was more about real snapshots. in such discussions you often here the picasso-argument (my child paints such things too in the kindergarten) in different versions.
Particular
Disassembler, occasional reassembler
I think the curators you spoke to were just behind the curve, which was unfortunate for you, but not surprising.
I would not define Gursky's work by a technique though. He also has un-manipulated images in his portfolio which display the same 'unique personal vision' as you call it. He typically uses Photoshop to amplify the essence of a scene, to make it more like he experienced it than it may be in reality. I would not put that down to stategy and concept. His straight images are recognizable Gursky's. The manipulated ones are more so.
I think the image you posted is too different in what it is trying to do to meaningfully compare.
taskoni
Well-known
Dear Peter,
It seems to me you have the answer to your own question in your own post. I guess some people (including myself too) who find Gursky's work banal don't shoot pictures that has the same substance because of that very reason - it's banal!. It is great you like this kind of work, but please don't try to make everyone like it. Don't be so offensive, everyone has his/her own taste, let it be 🙂
I find Gursky's work banal too, and yes, I have seen his works in person and it didn't make me somehow like it more 🙁
Regards,
Boris
taskoni
Well-known
Charlie, your picture is different stuff but I like!
Regards,
Boris
Regards,
Boris
MikeL
Go Fish
Don't know if this is reasonable/possible Fred, but could you mention what makes Gursky's work interesting for you?
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
Peter_wrote:
Well-known
where have you read that i do so? please don't make assumptions.
valdas
Veteran
Read the introduction... The very first sentence:
After the big retrospective in the MoMA 2001, a new big show in the Munich ‘Haus der Kunst’ is dedicated to the photographer whose ’99 cent II Diptychon’ (1999) has recently been auctioned at Sotheby’s for $3,346,456 – the highest price ever paid for a photograph: Andreas Gursky.
Money. That sets the tone of the article - how on earth Gursky can be worth that much...
After the big retrospective in the MoMA 2001, a new big show in the Munich ‘Haus der Kunst’ is dedicated to the photographer whose ’99 cent II Diptychon’ (1999) has recently been auctioned at Sotheby’s for $3,346,456 – the highest price ever paid for a photograph: Andreas Gursky.
Money. That sets the tone of the article - how on earth Gursky can be worth that much...
bobbyrab
Well-known
What does it matter, it's not your money.
valdas
Veteran
No, it is not. I am not talking about money. The Critic does.
MikeL
Go Fish
Thanks. My friends who are artists often ask what I see (or what questions come up) when looking at a river, and I do the same to them. I'm always curious....
taskoni
Well-known
I believe Valdas wanted to say exactly what she (if I am not mistaking) wrote "how on earth Gursky can be worth that much", because before hitting the jackpot there was no threads about him and his "art" 🙄
Go figure 😀
Regards,
Boris
Go figure 😀
Regards,
Boris
valdas
Veteran
bobbyrab
Well-known
I'm genuinely confused. Normally one would say 'how on earth can Gursky be worth that much', the meaning of which would be that you were incredulous that anyone would pay such a sum.
You have actually written "how on earth Gursky CAN be worth that much", which I would take as a preamble to justifying the value.
Which did you mean?
You have actually written "how on earth Gursky CAN be worth that much", which I would take as a preamble to justifying the value.
Which did you mean?
zauhar
Veteran
Lynn thanks for posting the link to that interesting article.
I will say that I like some of Gursky's work, but am not blown away by it - that said, I have not seen his prints up close. I didn't think much of Monet's haystacks until I saw them in person.
Paul, you think the article is too long, believe me as a piece of academic discourse it is mercifully brief and to the point. ;-)
Randy
I will say that I like some of Gursky's work, but am not blown away by it - that said, I have not seen his prints up close. I didn't think much of Monet's haystacks until I saw them in person.
Paul, you think the article is too long, believe me as a piece of academic discourse it is mercifully brief and to the point. ;-)
Randy
valdas
Veteran
If you read carefully, those were not my words, I was summing up the tone of the article...
bobbyrab
Well-known
The thing is, if I have a darkroom print from any of the great photographers living or dead, it's not so much better than a good quality print from a book by the given photographer.
The print quality will be better, but not so much as to change the fundamentals of the image [I know that's a huge generalisation but bear with me].
The difference with a Gursky is the print is a completely different experience from seeing it reproduced elsewhere. That makes it more of a unique artefact, and hence a better commodity.
They lend themselves well to being traded for high values in the same way as paintings, but this shouldn't be confused with worth as art, there has to be a link between the two, but they're not the same thing.
The print quality will be better, but not so much as to change the fundamentals of the image [I know that's a huge generalisation but bear with me].
The difference with a Gursky is the print is a completely different experience from seeing it reproduced elsewhere. That makes it more of a unique artefact, and hence a better commodity.
They lend themselves well to being traded for high values in the same way as paintings, but this shouldn't be confused with worth as art, there has to be a link between the two, but they're not the same thing.
Similar threads
