View Full Version : Worlds newest most expensive photo
http://www.petapixel.com/2011/11/09/gurksy-photo-of-rhine-sells-for-4-3m-becomes-worlds-most-expensive-pic/
why anyone would pay for that pic is beyond me, let alone 4+ million dollars.
Am I missing something...
I saw this on Facebook today.. I just don't get it. Not at all. Could think of so many things to do with over 4 mil.
Geoff79
10-11-2011, 10:04pm
Haha, I like this comment:
David Kozlowski10 hours ago
Dear Mr. Photo purchaser: Please feel free to browse through my
Flickr photostream. I also have alot of bad, unimaginative images
posted there that you might be interested in buying!
I seriously don't get it. Why not save a tonne of money and take close to the same photo yourself? To each their own, but I truly don't understand.
Art Vandelay
10-11-2011, 10:14pm
That wouldn't rate in the beginers section of our comps.
Bennymiata
11-11-2011, 9:20am
If that shot was on my camera, I'd delete it as being just a very boring shot.
CapnBloodbeard
11-11-2011, 10:27am
And whoever said that the art world is nothing but a huge joke, and the value of a work has absolutely nothing to do with how good (or bat**** boring) it actually is?
Just go through any 'respected' gallery if you need affirmation of that fact!
They must've put something in the water there - this one sold for $4.2mil http://www.businessinsider.com/christies-contemporary-art-auction-leonardo-dicaprio-2011-11#jeff-koons-two-ball-total-equilibrium-tank-sold-to-dealer-david-zwirner-for-42-million-above-the-3-million-presale-high-estimate-7
Gursky is also the snapshotter behind '99 cent diptychon', sold for over $3mil.
I guess that's fiar though - it's even worse than his river shot!
How on earth can I join this scam???
davearnold
11-11-2011, 1:06pm
Art is subjective, and the value appears more in who took the photo, then what the photo is of !
rellik666
11-11-2011, 1:15pm
I quite like it, but $4Mill......blimey some people have so much money.......:(
William
11-11-2011, 1:18pm
:umm: I dont mind it to much, I like the Colour layers he has spotted , Not sure about the 4 Mil though, They could have bought this one of mine for $500 :D
How does it make you feel Darren when that sells for that price, while you shoot infinitely better shots and are only making a living? To make matters worse it is photoshopped!
Tommo1965
11-11-2011, 3:53pm
im sorry..but that is bullshit to buy a photo for that amount of money..no wonder this world is in such a crap state , with all the twats with money being such idiots :action:
I'll bet Gursky is (jealous) too! There is no way HE was paid that money for the shot. It was #1 of 6 prints and the others evidently hang in galleries around the world. This one came from a "distinguished private German collector" and Sotherby's declared an interest in it at their auction. :confused013
I can understand some wack job paying gazillions for an original and only version, but a single print from a limited edition? I guess art gallery curators are measured by how much money they can spend in a single purchase and get away with it! :Doh:
How much does he charge for a wedding?
$500 with all images processed and burnt on a DVD
I'd give it maybe a 3 on an AP Open comp :p
You can a high res of this for $200
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5095/5560849856_ca4761af03_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cypheroz/5560849856/)
Robe Sunset (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cypheroz/5560849856/) by cypheroz (http://www.flickr.com/people/cypheroz/), on Flickr
My wife has an eye for a good photo and can quickly sum up what she thinks about it (she has no interest in taking them though).
I showed her the worlds newest most expensive photo.
Immediate response, "Why."
My response, ":scrtch:".
Longshots
11-11-2011, 7:54pm
I've seen some excellent images sell for a pretty stunning price, but even I looked at this and went ### ? !!! The art world is insane sometimes. That in my humble opinion is a stunningly dull and uninteresting image, that I wouldnt personally part with $40 for. Each to their own I suppose.
And FWIW I was a guest judge this week at the South Australian Professional Photographic Awards, and also the International Loupe Awards, and had this come up at either, I would have scored it in the 50 - 60 range - and the scoring range is from 50 - 100 on both awards. :scrtch:
Ezookiel
11-11-2011, 9:37pm
I'm very much a beginner, so can't really judge it's merits, but I do see some interest in it - its naturally occuring layers of similar colours, with a strip of texture through the middle in the form of the water, so to me it isn't without any merit. It's a shot that I'd rate as "interesting"
But it's sure not something I'd bother buying, not at any price, and sure as hell not at THAT price.
There are a heck of a lot of people's photos in the CC and Non CC sections of this site that I'd be far quicker to lay money down for than that one (if I had any to lay down :( )
sunny6teen
11-11-2011, 11:01pm
love it or hate it. it would've been purchased as an investment. Gursky's name is a desirable one these days - it's not the first of his images to sell for millions.
now that it's also famous for its notoriety, what will it be worth in 10 years?
It was a scandal when Australia purchased Pollock's Blue Poles?
sonofcoco
12-11-2011, 12:05am
I expected to be blown away when I opened that link, and I was. Unfortunately it wasn't at how good the picture was though. If I was in a position to shell out 4 million for a photo I'd go to 500px and choose a good one from there before I'd go for that. Wouldn't pay any money for this pic to be honest.
ApolloLXII
13-11-2011, 8:24am
While we may scoff at the idea of what seems to be a "boring" photograph selling for a ridiculous price, you have to remember that modern art is very subjective and very much open to the whims of art critics and fashionistas. On the plus side, I think this photograph has a lot of abstract appeal but I agree with a lot of the other posts in that paying $4 million + for it is very much OTT. It's aesthetics might be questionable but that's "modern art" for you. Sometimes, the most banal things attract ridiculous price tags as well as being classified as "art". I'd love to hear the critics views about why they think this photo is worth the price tag and, more to the point, what they think it's worth in it's aesthetic appeal.
tassam380
13-11-2011, 4:23pm
Every picture I have seen on this website is far better than that, Sure the name is what they are paying for, but come on. Be Realistic.
arthurking83
13-11-2011, 10:08pm
At that rate, my recycle bin is worth an estimated 4 trillion dollars or more!
At the rate I delete my similarly crappy images, I could have paid off Greece's, Italy's and the USA's national debts off by now.
Oh well, I opened the recycle bin one last time looked at all that value .... and bid it all one final adieu .. before I hit the 'Empty Recycle bin' tab. :D
All those millions down the drain :D
Bennymiata
14-11-2011, 11:01am
It was a scandal when Australia purchased Pollock's Blue Poles?
No it wasn't, it was actually a very good investment as it is now worth around 4 times what we paid for it.
Personally, I have seen it, and I think it is an amazing piece of artwork.
I don't know if is WAS worth it at the time, but history has proven that it was.
old dog
14-11-2011, 11:48am
I guess all has been said....except maybe this......I would be ashamed to admit that it was me who put this in a competition. This buyer has both, too much money and also little taste in photography. Incidentally, I want his contact number so I can have him visit me and peruse my images...:D
Ezookiel
14-11-2011, 3:38pm
It was a scandal when Australia purchased Pollock's Blue Poles?
No it wasn't, it was actually a very good investment as it is now worth around 4 times what we paid for it.
That's what I believe Sunny6teen was saying. The price back then was a scandal, but has since proven to have been a worthy investment.
First thing that sprang to my mind when I saw this: there is something fishy going on - money laundry maybe?
This image, BTW, is set in plexiglass and measures 3.2x2 meters. I guess you'ld need quite some ballroom sized living to hang this from your wall. I am pretty sure where the image was taken, perhaps I'll hop over next weekend and create something similar, than print it twice the size and auction it for $10 million? :D
Am I correct in saying this image just proves that even good photographers can still produce crap shots? ....Just saying....:th3:
The thing which annoys me is that at the highest end of a lot of things including photography, fashion etc. It matters much more who took the photo rather than the photo it self.
If one of us gave our images to one of these "artists" then they too would probably sell for prices ranging in 7 digit figures, whilst if we tried to sell their photos would be lucky to scrape together 100 dollars for it or a sale at all.
I guess that's why I like sport so much, particularly tennis, it matters not who you know or who you are, if you're better then the rest then you'll get the glory you deserve.
crazymorton
14-11-2011, 9:20pm
the world has gone mad :efelant:
as mentioned its obviously the photographers rep that is driving these crazy prices. however, that is still a pretty ordinary photo and shouldn't be compared to art in any way imo.
mad i say :lol:
Showed it to the wife - her honest, gut reaction (all i said was 'what do you think of this') was 'what is it?' Once explained that it was the river Rhine she commented 'what a load of rubbish'. I have to agree, but then again I think most of Picasso's work was a load of rubbish also. To each their own I suppose.
i think the photograph is actually pretty good.
$4.3mill for the print how much for the original???
ricktas
15-11-2011, 5:45am
I had a boss a few years ago, that as soon as the Archibald winner was announced, would go out and buy a piece of Art by the winning artist. His reasoning was that it would go up in value. My guess is that this is what is going on here, its more about the photographer than the actual photograph. Artificially creating a market, and demand, where one possibly shouldn't exist. Some people call things Art for the sake of it, and the monetary value (possibly) in it, rather than any inherent uniqueness about the actual art itself.
OZAmateur
15-11-2011, 6:21am
i think its a front for drug deals!
either that or the buyer got caught sleeping with the photographers daughter and this is payment for not kicking his ass
Ezookiel
16-11-2011, 4:34pm
I was about 12 in 1977 when I was taken to an art gallery by my Dad.
Lying on the floor was a sheet of glass, that had been smashed in the middle.
The gallery had paid $12,000 dollars for this "piece of art"
I'm SOOOOO in the wrong business if you can break a piece of glass and sell it to gullible art lovers for 12,000 (1977) dollars, which now would be a POOP load of dollars more than that.
Put the word "art" on something and charge what you like.
arthurking83
16-11-2011, 8:00pm
Y'know it's all a load of self indulgent inbred BS when KR posts a commentary piece in support of the fiasco ....
It is valuable because it is art, not just a photo.
Rules are worthless. If he was just a photographer instead of an artist, he would have been crippled by the nonexistent "rule of thirds" myth, and put the horizon someplace else. In his case, the horizon slams right through the middle, which adds to the power by giving a sense of unease. Our minds ask "what's up with this? This is so barren and empty; where is this place?"
Likewise, if it's not captured on film, it is not art. Artists create art, not photographers. Artists may choose to work in photography, but being an artist is what matters above all. I can't think of any iconic photo ever created with a digital camera. People don't think (FART) when shooting digital, which renders zillions of meaningless "captures" every minute, but art requires concentration. "If you didn't FART, it's not art" as they say at Yale.
In this case, the world's best photo (as gauged by price, the way modern man values things) was shot on a Linhof large-format camera, not some SLR. Because his large-format camera allowed tilting the film and lens, everything from near to infinity was in perfect focus; no "depth-of-field" or stopping-down required ....
Quote: Ken Rockwell
He also goes on to elaborate about other 'technical jibberish' but it also made very little sense, and had an air of similarity that this expensive photo represented in the art world.
He's right tho.. photographers don't make art, artists do that, and of all the artists in the world he creates some of the best conceived pieces.
Problem is that he always forgets that all important prefix that explains it in real world terms .. and that's the BS prefix :D
FWIW: the key point in KR's prognosis (that I've presented for the purpose of critical analysis here) is where he explains his thoughts on the issue of iconic art created with a digital camera.
He says that he can't think of any iconic art piece created with a digital camera.
I'd seriously question his ability to practise the adjective he used! ;)
But, I do take some consolation with me to bed tonight that'll help me sleep well.
99% of my landscape images have the horizon slap bang right in ze middle. Therefore I must be an artist(in waiting) :p
I generally advise against reading KR, but in this case I have to renege on the basis that if doesn't say the stupidest things, I can't think of anybody that does and can and will!
On his site(which I now refuse to link too), he has a small piece of jibberish that pertains to the use of tools to create art, and incoherent garbage as to what constitutes correctness in the selection of these tools
He then goes on to promote his photography tour to a specific place in the USA with limitations on what you need to bring, and then describes an image he's capture using a specific type of photographic tool.
Can anyone else read this and see the backflipping distorted hypocrisy of it all, and then explain to me if they think he has any understanding of the concept of a camera type as a tool?
... Ah well! I gotta say tho .. I love it! :lol:
Art Vandelay
16-11-2011, 8:23pm
On his site(which I now refuse to link too),
You don't have to. He's just done his job with you anyway.
His style of 'writing' is in itself a creative art, which provokes responses like you've just done. It keeps his name going around and in everyones face. Like it or not, it's his method of marketing. It works well.
He's also probably making more than most internet photographers out there. He will be thanking you. :D
How do you spell Kardashian ?
Longshots
16-11-2011, 8:24pm
In the past few months I've judged a substantial number of images in a number of competitions/awards, in all honesty, if I was relying on gut reaction I would offer a score for this in the 60-70's. Having said that just because a client/customer is prepared to love/pay for a picture, doesnt make it a great image. Just an expensive one.
But, I do take some consolation with me to bed tonight that'll help me sleep well.
99% of my landscape images have the horizon slap bang right in ze middle. Therefore I must be an artist(in waiting) :p
Mate, PM me. I would love to buy one of your landscapes. Let's start at $50 and make it a really terrible shot as I want to maximise my earnings potential. Cheers :D
In the past few months I've judged a substantial number of images in a number of competitions/awards, in all honesty, if I was relying on gut reaction I would offer a score for this in the 60-70's. Having said that just because a client/customer is prepared to love/pay for a picture, doesnt make it a great image. Just an expensive one.
Just for clarity Longshots...is a score of 60 - 70 good bad or indifferent? I ask because in my day an exam score of 60 - 70 was not bad whereas (IMO) this image is terrible, I would score it 20 - 30 (in my old fashioned scoring system.)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.