Ite missa est.
Ite missa est.
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.
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.
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.