Highest price ever for work by a living photographer

[tim atherton]

Andreas Gursky's "99 Cent" diptych went for $2.48 million at auction on 16th Nov (irony intentional?)

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003466018

(I'm also fairly sure it's a digital print)

[Gordon Moat]

I read up a bit on that one after seeing it on PDN. Appears to have been a few large format captures, then scanned and further manipulated, then output as two prints. The comment about the main gallery that represents him not being the seller indicates to me that Gursky did not profit from this high sales figure.

Gursky and a handful of conceptual artists like him might not be considered photographers. Rather they might better be termed conceptual artists who happen to use cameras; Cindy Sherman being another prominent example of this. Process is secondary to intent.

On a good note, while this is frivolous excess at it's best (or worst . . . depending upon viewpoint), this type of thing generates greater interest in all photography. It is also nice to see less traditional colour images that are not wilderness landscapes getting some recognition. Almost makes me want to buy a book of his images.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[tim atherton]

Gursky and a handful of conceptual artists like him might not be considered photographers. Rather they might better be termed conceptual artists who happen to use cameras; Cindy Sherman being another prominent example of this. Process is secondary to intent.
Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

More so than some other artists, Gursky is much more clearly rooted in photography though (aside from his training, many of his works are also "straight" photographs for example - though personally I've never felt there is any form of clear line between the two - straight/manipulated).

On a good note, while this is frivolous excess at it's best (or worst . . . depending upon viewpoint), this type of thing generates greater interest in all photography. It is also nice to see less traditional colour images that are not wilderness landscapes getting some recognition. Almost makes me want to buy a book of his images.

Absolutely - and on the book, I find the prints stunning in real life.

[Walter Calahan]

Unreal.

I'm speechless.

2.48 million

[tim atherton]

Unreal.

I'm speechless.

2.48 million


I was recently browsing the auction sites after reading a similar article. As well as other photographers, it still seems the Dusseldorf School bubble hasn't burst (despite predictions)

Going from memory,

Gursky's work was still the highest, with sales from $250,00ish through $750,00 to well 2.48 mil

Work by Struth, Tillmans, Demand etc was going for between $75,00 and about $250,00 I think


You can see other mainly vintage stuff from Sotheby's here (you may need to register?

http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotResultsDetailList.jsp?event_id=27955&sale_number=N08227 (click on "Show Lot Name")

A few very roughly:

Adams - Moonrise $609,600 (most of his other work from $10,00 to $80,000)

ELIOT PORTER $9,600

Atget $25,000 +-

Walker Evans $15,000-25,000

Sander $10,000

Kertesz $27,600+-

Weston $10,000-$262,400

Winogrand $6,600-$98,400

Robert Frank $18,000-$204,000

Sally Mann $22,800

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Andreas Gursky's "99 Cent" diptych went for $2.48 million at auction on 16th Nov (irony intentional?)

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003466018

(I'm also fairly sure it's a digital print)

What a year to collect photography. This time last year we were all stunned that Richard Prince's Untitled Cowboy sold for over $1 million. Now, a year later, Edward Steichen has the record for the $2.9 million and yet again another photographer breaks Prince's record. By this time next year, I wouldn't be surprised if a photograph has already sold for $5 million...I've gotten some early previews as to what's going on in the Springtime at the auction houses and boy does it seem possible. Congratulations to Andreas Gursky.

[BrianShaw]

(snip)

A few very roughly:

Adams - Moonrise $609,600 (most of his other work from $10,00 to $80,000)

Atget $25,000 +-

Walker Evans $15,000-25,000

Sander $10,000

Kertesz $27,600+-

Weston $10,000-$262,400

Robert Frank $18,000-$204,000



Tim, I regret to inform you that these folks are deceased. Nice information though. Sorry I had to break the bad news :o

[tim atherton]

Tim, I regret to inform you that these folks are deceased. Nice information though. Sorry I had to break the bad news :o

Damn - when did Robert Frank die... he was fine last time I saw him :-)

P.S. - Vintage is code for "dead"...

[BrianShaw]

My apologies to Mr. Frank. He should be happy to know that I have no, none, nil abilities of seeing into the future.

[paulr]

P.S. - Vintage is code for "dead"...

Or almost dead.

[paulr]

Gursky and a handful of conceptual artists like him might not be considered photographers. Rather they might better be termed conceptual artists who happen to use cameras; Cindy Sherman being another prominent example of this. Process is secondary to intent.

I think a some people might consider Gursky an "artist who uses photography" more than a photographer, and certainly they would say that about a lot of the conceptualists who have been popular since the 80s.

But I don't think it's as much about process being second to intent as much as it's about the traditions they come out of (and don't come out of).

There are a lot of people who are considered photographers who don't care much about process--guys like Walker Evans, or just about any photojournalist. But they keep the photographer label because they come cleanly out of photographic traditions, not traditions more commonly tied to other media.

[QT Luong]

So what is the difference between (a) photographer (b) photographic artist (c) artist using photography ?

[Charles Carstensen]

I just did a Google search. Please do, click on one of the images to launch an amazing wealth of information and other works.

[paulr]

So what is the difference between (a) photographer (b) photographic artist (c) artist using photography ?

It's a difference of perception more than anything else. An obvious example of an "artist using photography" would be someone who primarily does conceptual painting or video or installations, who then starts incorporating photographic imagery into their work.

The work might be photographic, but its lineage (and the artist's audience and reputation) are tied much more closely to other traditions.

One of the reasons these artists get so much attention is that they appeal to the art world at large and not just the smaller niches of art photography. And they often appeal to the kinds of buyers who are used to collecting paintings and sculptures, and so are used to paying much bigger prices.

I don't know if people think of Gursky this way or not, but he definitely has appeal far outside the usual photo world.

[tim atherton]

So what is the difference between (a) photographer (b) photographic artist (c) artist using photography ?

Lots of grey areas... and probably best done by citing examples.

working backwards (just some examples) - and only contemporary


(c) artist using photography

At the far end of the scale

David Hockney

Gerhard Richter

Anslem Kiefer

Then probably the likes of Cindy Sherman

Thomas Demand

Possibly Gursky

(b) photographic artist

Possibly Gursky

Thomas Struth

Elger Esser

The Bechers

Christenberry

Sally Mann

Sugimoto

Misrach

Shore

Nixon

Eggleston

Possibly Robert Adams

Possibly Friedlander

(a) photographer

Possibly Robert Adams

Possibly Friedlander

Basilico

Tice

James

and everybody else....

(of course you could argue for ever about who goes exactly where - some are obvious like Hockney and Richter or Sugimoto - I think...)

[Alex Hawley]

So what is the difference between (a) photographer (b) photographic artist (c) artist using photography ?

Think it mostly depends on how well-connected the artist is in NYC, which is also reflected in the auction prices. That's my farm-boy take on it.

[paulr]

Think it mostly depends on how well-connected the artist is in NYC, which is also reflected in the auction prices. That's my farm-boy take on it.

chicken and egg ...

how connected you are in NYC can have a thing or two do do with the kind of work you produce. I don't think Gursky got his connections because some uncle plays golf with Peter Galassi.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Or almost dead.

Unfortunately, Ruth Bernhard will be among the members in that club soon. Those around her expect this to be any day now. She is in terrible health. Our retrospective coming out in the next issue will be the last article ever done on Ruth while she is living...:(

[Gordon Moat]

I tend to agree with Tim Atherton on the break-down of classifications. One thing that should be noted is that some of the artists who use photography came out of formal fine art education or experience in other realms, i.e. Cindy Sherman originally was a painter, even though she had a camera for quite some time starting in early life. Another aspect is that the technical characteristics of photography for these individuals can often be given less importance than the results; sure, the results can be slick and polished, but the approach and processes might be far from traditional photography.

As has been mentioned by many highly concerned with process, there is a consideration of not calling someone a photographer when they don't process and make their own prints. While that is a strict classification, it is overly simplified (my opinion). Anyway, for whatever it is worth, my formal training and experiences are through oil painting, even though I have used cameras since I was little. I suppose at some moments I don't consider myself a photographer, and often might not use the proper (traditional?) technical approaches, but I try specifically to not be tied to processes.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Darin Boville]

I tend to agree with Tim Atherton on the break-down of classifications. One thing that should be noted is that some of the artists who use photography came out of formal fine art education or experience in other realms, i.e. Cindy Sherman originally was a painter, even though she had a camera for quite some time starting in early life.

I'm not sure what "originally was a painter" means in this context. She was a photo major in art school in the mid-1970s (though originally enrolled in painting). There is also a persistant rumor that I've heard from several sources that credit her rise to a relationship with an art world "heavy"--I can find no evidence for this but, being cynical, feel that it must be gospel truth.

--Darin

[Dvenosa]

My father is one of the most well known artists in Brazil, and I must say that ...yes...you have to be talented but it's not just that. Almost every time connections are almost as important as talent. Of course I think my dad is talented(that's suspicious...) but I don't think the same about other people I know that are "booming" at the moment. In 1994 my father went to Veneza's Bienal, that is one of the most traditional exibitions in the world, but he only got there because he had a damn good merchant at the time( who by the way passed yrs ago), good representation is really important!

BTW does someone knows:

How much I expect to pay for a small Sugimoto's print?

How can I get into Dusseldorf Kunstakademie?
:D


ps:sorry for my english.

[neil poulsen]

Wow. Who would have known. I saw this photograph at the Portland Art Museum. I had no idea of its value. It's impressive for its size, but I didn't think it was THAT great.

Jeepers.

[j.e.simmons]

Man - I was a music composition major in undergraduate school, so maybe I should call myself a composer and raise my prices significantly.
juan

[Frank Petronio]

So does this mean the Gigapixel project stuff is worth billions? ;)

I suspect it is the ability to tie their images to larger concepts, rather than simply doing one-offs or aping the classics, that moves most of these people from being in the photo realm to the artist realm. For example, a Michael Kenna should be moving up to the big leagues soon enough. Although his prior history of exhibiting and teaching photography may actually hinder this...

[BrianShaw]

Man - I was a music composition major in undergraduate school, so maybe I should call myself a composer and raise my prices significantly.
juan

One might be more assured of raising their prices by departing this mortal world -- we all know that posthumous prices are significantly higher than "humous" prices ;)

[Gordon Moat]

I'm not sure what "originally was a painter" means in this context. She was a photo major in art school in the mid-1970s (though originally enrolled in painting). There is also a persistant rumor that I've heard from several sources that credit her rise to a relationship with an art world "heavy"--I can find no evidence for this but, being cynical, feel that it must be gospel truth.

--Darin

If you check around enough, you can stumble into several interviews with Cindy Sherman. She began her art education in college as a painter, which (as anyone who has been through such a program would tell you) is different from a starting goal of becoming a photographer. The foundations classes are similar, though upper class courses diverge greatly. Anyway, in more than a few interviews, she mentions nearly failing her first photography course, and often mentions that she barely knows how to handle cameras and films. She heavily relies on labs to process and print her photos.

Personality and networking (and sometimes chance or blind luck) can land people in the right places at the right time. Quite likely being in NYC might make that simpler than if you were in some small town elsewhere, though I don't think too many people had it easy. We might all wish (at times) to be afflicted with the burden of knowing someone who can connect us with the right people to get our work more highly noticed.
:D

Going to well known schools and studying under well known professors could make some of those important networking connections. Obviously there are no guarantees, and someone has to regard your finished works as being important, interesting, or simply saleable. There are many very talented artists and photographers out in the world, but if there names are only known in small close-knit circles with limited influence, their chances might not be as good as others, despite being potentially more talented.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[paulr]

Man - I was a music composition major in undergraduate school, so maybe I should call myself a composer and raise my prices significantly.
juan

The pompous artist's statement that this could spawn would be a work of art in itself. I think you should go for it.

[Tim Hyde]

I don't lightly disagree with Tim Atherton on anything, but I think it has a lot more to do with luck and marketing and having a certain art-community appeal than it does intention or training. The fact is that there is vastly more money available in the "art" world than the photography world, and these prices are tame in the art world. Photographers who cross over tend to be represented by art galleries--in NYC, and elsewhere, not strictly photo galleries, even high end ones, and they have been taken up by the art magazines, not just Focus or B&W.

[Robert Skeoch]

I could have shot that..... come on admit it you were thinking it also.
-Rob

[Turner Reich]

Looks like a '70 Popular Photo cover. If that is the highest price paid for work by a living photographer then the rest of us must be dead... wrong about what we are doing.

[Charles Carstensen]

It aint what you know, it is who you know.

[tim atherton]

It aint what you know, it is who you know.

sure, never mind the 9 or 10 years of training at some of Germany's best photogrpahy and art schools, the years and expense spent working on bodies of work, building a solid history of exhibitions at smaller galleries etc etc.

[tim atherton]

I could have shot that..... come on admit it you were thinking it also.
-Rob

yeah - but you didn't... :-)

[paulr]

I just had a conversation that shed some light on the "photographer" vs. "artist who uses photography" conversation. It seems in a lot of cases to do more with the work than with the person doing it. If you start producing work that that has strong ties to traditions in other media, you might suddenly find yourself branded as an artist who uses photography ... even if your old work looks like fossils from the West Coast Landscape school.

My friend showed me a few contemporary examples of photographers who followed this path, and my small brain forgot their names right away. But the obvious example is Robert Frank. He made a name for himself with work coming out of a solidly photographic tradition (1950s street photography) and decades later started doing conceptual narrative pieces that combined photography and text. The photography world rejected his new work, but the larger art world eventually noticed, and loved it.

Frank followed that path for deeply personal reasons. I suspect others are doing it in pursuit of a bigger, richer, and (sometimes) more sophisticated audience. Viewed in the context of the art world at large, the photo world can look like a pretty small ghetto. Some artists are able to find more understanding and more acclaim outside of it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I could have shot that..... come on admit it you were thinking it also.
-Rob

Yeah, but would you have printed it 22 feet long? I have not seen the print in real life so I cant say if there is anything special about the colors, way it was printed etc, my suspicion is that the art cognisenti have spoken and conned at least one guy into buying big ass mediocre work for two mill, it seems the refrains, there is a fool born every minute and nobody got poor underestimating the taste of the american public seem to be true now more than ever.

OTOH, cudos for Gursky I am green with envy... :)

[paulr]

You have to fool a lot of people (a lot of very rich fools) to drive a contemporary art auction into the millions.

[Dvenosa]

This statement " I could have shot it" is not the major point. I've seen a lot of kids saying the same about some dada and surrealism painters. But this is not the point.

You have to be aware of the context that this was made, the life of the artist, the concept behind the work, the impact when you see it hanging on a museum wall... There are some good starting points to understand this, one of them is Martin Heidegger's "the origin of the work of art". Try to find a good translation because it is already complex, with a not so good translation it becomes unreadable.

I think there are some people around who really don't deserve all this status as artists, but Gursky is an amazing one...about his price...I think it's nuts...and I think he must think the same about it.


Daniel Venosa