Yes, of course, it is my subjective opinion that I am bored by it, I should have been clearer on that point. Someone else pays miilions for it and loves it, I hope.
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
And I have no idea what I would think of it, should I ever see it in person. The thumbnail does convey the reality of the photograph.
“Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu
Max, but do you really think the person who bought it found it millions of dollars worth of interesting? I highly doubt it. I bet whoever it is thought it was maybe a thousand dollars worth of interesting and the remaining millions worth of investment value, prestige (?), whatever. Once you're into the millions it's got little to do with enjoying any piece of art, I think. I can half understand those prices for famous paintings and sculptures, but in the end this is just a c-print.
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
Of course, Michael, you are probably right but there is no way to know that. It seems hard to justify the price for something like that but it happens all the time. In the fine wine business, for example, when a customer asks me "what do you think this bottle is worth at auction?", my answer is always.."whatever anyone is willing to pay for it". Previous results may give an indication (if available) but in the end it is always about what the perceived value is for a given individual. That value could be purely in enjoyment, investment, prestige, a status symbol, or a combination of all those factors. I don't think that once you're into millions it is not about enjoyment because millions for someone able to spend that kind of money is like hundreds to us and it's not a big deal. It's all relative. I've had customers over the years that have spent millions on wine collections and have enjoyed every great bottle with friends. In some people's minds that's insane because it is just a beverage with a finite life, an ultimate goal of enjoyment, to end as piss in the toilet
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
Also, at this level of collecting, it is very easy to MAKE a market because there aren't many precedents or gauges to go by. It's a pretty rarified atmosphere that can support itself, given the rarity and unique nature of the pieces. I still think it's nothing special as an image but who knows, mural size, with the right lighting, it may be very easy to appreciate and able to "speak" to somebody (obviously).
Last edited by MaximusM3; 11-10-2011 at 07:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.
My son created far better Art in preschool.
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
The Art Gallery of NSW show (which was not exclusively Gursky) included, from memory, 2 or 3 Gurskys, one of them the 99c picture (which I called the dime store picture earlier, rather a Freudian slip).
Originally Posted by jnanian
The particular court was indeed a very large room and it was necessary to stand back quite a distance to view the larger prints.
This may raise the sturdy evergreen subject of "art" and "gallery" which may be oversimplified as "if it's in an art gallery it must be art"
Just stirring the possum :-)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
oh this is ridiculous - every time a photograph sells for a large amount of money people on these forums start acting like a bunch of jealous teenage girls (what's SHE got that I don't have??) - it's not ABOUT any particular aspect of merit - and NO - none of you COULD make as 'successful' a photograph. It's not ABOUT 'photographic merit' in any way. It's because gursky is the tool of some wealthy business people. Like britney spears... he is paid as a celebrity and a representative of 'high culture'. Well there are certainly merits beyond that... but the pop music analogy isn't far off... so you can make music like britney spears?? well that's not exactly the point, is it? It's not about meritocracy. It never was.
Originally Posted by MDR
A delayed thought (I'm a slow thinker):
I'm sure that in some countries the artist does receive some percentage of resales which occur after the initial artist/gallery/auction one.
It has been a subject of discussion in Australia where the monetary values of works by ethnic artists have increased quite substantially and buyer to buyer sales were not in any way beneficial to the artist. From shaky memory France was cited as a country where the artist or their estate did receive a payment.
Last edited by Ross Chambers; 11-13-2011 at 12:34 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: Missed a phrase :-)
It's called conspicuous consumption. Gursky's work does tend to have nice balance to it. But this would impress me a lot more as a painting where some real execution were involved. Fauxtoshop is
just a cop-out lazy way to paint in cases like this. Essentially expensive wallpaper. So I admire the
ability of the folks who mounted the thing. But other than size, I don't see much difference between
this composition and hundreds of things done ever since the early 70's.
I have no opinion of Gursky's piece as a viable piece of art. My only opinion is that I don't like it. It tells me nothing. I have no emotional reaction to it other than trying to understand why someone would want to spend millions on it.
If I was a billionaire I might think of it as investment, but nothing else. Rich people want vehicles to make them more money, and this is a pretty interesting way of both bragging and investing at the same time.
What I always do think of in cases like this is: If we took 50 pieces of art, from 50 different people. Some famous, others not. Some schooled, and others self taught. Then we let people that have not been educated in the arts look at all the pieces, and just see which ones they pick based on what they like, what stirs emotion, what they dislike, etc - and why. And then we let people that have been trained and educated in the arts do the same, and then compare the outcome.
To me the art market world is commercialism. You learn at an early stage what is considered iconic and what is not, so that all these minds get nicely funneled into similar thought patterns. Kind of like what Six Sigma does for the business world, or what marketing departments do to form people's opinions about their products. You are basically told what to like, and why. Art history shapes the centers of appreciation of the beholders (and investors), or at least steers them in that direction. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Sums it up pretty well, Thomas.