I think of it as a good trait of character to like whatever I want to like, without listening the vernacular of popular opinion.
It becomes sticky, and difficult, if I happen to agree with popular opinion. Fortunately, this time, I don't. Contemporary photography? To me it's all just 'photography', and either I have a positive experience viewing a picture, or I don't. That is all there is to it. The intellectual side of it is completely uninteresting to me, because I hate labels with a passion.
I am fascinated by other people's opinions, however. So that I can try understand, what in particular is it about Gursky's work that appeals to you? I'm very interested to hear you opinion. Seriously. No knee jerk.
Thomas, I was not directing my statement towards you personally. Quite the contrary, I think you express your opinions very well and I respect them, even if I disagree. Others do not explain their opinions well at all and leave pithy comments that do nothing for the conversation. Mine may have fallen in that category this time as I usually put more effort in what I write here. It's late now, but tomorrow I will comment further and more in depth about my opinion of this piece and what I meant by contemporary photography.
I think, whether we think Mr. Gursky is a great photographer or not, is just a little irrelevant. What is relevant, is the man whatever his motive, has raised the
financial bar on photography that we may all enjoy, if we decide to see it this way.
If someone is encouraged, for whatever reason to drop a few million bucks on a picture from Gursky, that may mean I can ask for a bit more respect and financial
compensation for the work that I do.
I think, whether we think Mr. Gursky is a great photographer or not, is just a little irrelevant.
That's true. There are two separate issues in question here. The first is the actual photograph and our opinions on its artistic value, etc. All of these opinions are just that and none of them are wrong as they are personal.
The other issue is the price paid. Is this a fair price for one person to hand over to another just for a photograph? It's not my money so I don't really care.
The only thing that bothers me is the perception the general public has of photographers and/or artists. Whilst some of us might think it's great that a photograph can sell for so much, the more general thinking is that these people must be living on another planet and it all gets put into the same category as piles of bricks, unmade beds and empty rooms with lights turning on and off as works of art.
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that discussing if Gursky is a great photographer or not is irrelevant. We have folks in this thread asking fellow Apug'ers why he/she likes or dislikes Gursky and his work, without this kind of discussion Apug will merely be a site of discussion of technical matters and the art is thereby suppressed or kept to basic "like" or "don't like".
Steve I understand what you mean but that perception of fine art not being abstract went out the window with Duchamp's Fountain (1917) and Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (1928-29).
I fall into the class of folks that call these abstract works of art that have this reflexivity to be strokes of genius. But I highly respect a contrary belief as it is just as true to one's taste and thereby correct.
Last edited by zsas; 11-16-2011 at 02:25 PM. Click to view previous post history.