Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

[John Kasaian]

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5496716
:eek: :confused:

[bobwysiwyg]

Go figure. :p

[E. von Hoegh]

Some folks have too much money...

[David Swinnard]

But...it's BIG, it must be good.

And it probably goes with the new furniture in the Great Room.

(I wonder which part of the world this will now call home...?)

[Scott Davis]

But...it's BIG, it must be good.

And it probably goes with the new furniture in the Great Room.

(I wonder which part of the world this will now call home...?)

The furniture in the great room... you mean the lawn?

[Ken Lee]

Excellent title for this thread. Excellent.

[Jerry Bodine]

Wonder if they would've accepted copies of Monopoly money?

[Michael E]

And it probably goes with the new furniture in the Great Room.

(I wonder which part of the world this will now call home...?)

I quote from the lot description: "This work is number one from an edition of six.

Other works from this edition are in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, New York; Pinakothek der Moderne, Munich; Tate Modern, London and the Glenstone Collection, Potomac."

This will probably not grace anybody's livingroom.

If there is anything to learn from this sale: Buy more photographs. They might be worth something down the road. And, no, the photographer didn't get the money (I'm sure he got a good price in the initial sale, though).

Michael

[mdm]

This is his masterwork, after all. And a very important photograph. What is it they say, photograph something for what else it is? Its not what it appears to be.

[Michael E]

What is it they say, photograph something for what else it is? Its not what it appears to be.

Are you implying that Gursky is one of Minor White's disciples (also called minor whites)?

Michael

[mdm]

No, it is also a cityscape and a view of a very important river. It is also cultural. If you live on the Rhine it is more than a bland picture of a river.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I made an image like that once. It didn't excite my friends, so it stayed on the SD card in my point and shoot.

Not to criticize the photographer, but the art world has it's head up it's ass.

[jon.oman]

What was paid for it is obscene!

[Ben Syverson]

I made an image like that once. It didn't excite my friends, so it stayed on the SD card in my point and shoot.
Damn, you must have a nice point and shoot. What is it, 100 megapixels?

[Michael E]

I made an image like that once. It didn't excite my friends, so it stayed on the SD card in my point and shoot.

Not to criticize the photographer, but the art world has it's head up it's ass.

Or maybe your friends just have no clue about art...

[Jay DeFehr]

I made an image like that once.

No, you didn't.

[David Swinnard]

[QUOTE=mdm;802594]No, it is also a cityscape and a view of a very important river. It is also cultural. If you live on the Rhine it is more than a bland picture of a river.[/QUOTE

Is there an explanation forthcoming?

Aha, found one "...digitally erased buildings on the far side of the river..."

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=999999961&workid=27163&searchid=9248&tabview=text

I'm still not sure I buy it though. (or maybe I didn't learn the creative use of language well enough in school)

[Brian Ellis]

I realize that some here would prefer to just deride Gursky's work rather than making an effort to understand it. But for those who might be curious as to why Gursky's work is fetching these kinds of numbers and why many consider him the most important photographer of his generation, there's an interesting and entertaining 23 minute video here (you have to get past the poor technical quality but it's not too bad).

http://vimeo.com/17692722

You may not like his work any better after seeing the video, I didn't. It still isn't my cup of tea. But if nothing else you'll see the location of the photograph that was sold at Christie's and you can then see how it was altered in Photoshop which is kind of interesting. And more importantly, it might help you to understand his work a little better even if you don't like it. Which might keep you from embarrassing yourself by referring to it as wallpaper and making other similar ignorant comments as some have done in other threads about Gursky.

[Gary Tarbert]

Oh come on guys Just admit it your so envious i know i am Regards Gary:D

[Donald Miller]

I think that the sale and sale amount were wonderful. A very few can aspire to reach the level that this relatively young man has achieved.

[Brian Ellis]

Oh come on guys Just admit it your so envious i know i am Regards Gary:D

Oh not me. I wouldn't want to drive the Maserati that he drives. And I wouldn't want what looks like at least a 5,000 square foot, three story studio like he has. And how demeaning it would be if people with their heads up their asses such as the Museum of Modern Art liked my work.

[Sal Santamaura]

...the art world has it's head up it's ass.Why do you limit that observation to the "art world?" :)

[D. Bryant]

I made an image like that once.

California Dreamin'.

[Daniel Stone]

Big dollar print sales and your work being in influential art museums worldwide doesn't necessarily mean you're a pompous a-hole artist... I'd imagine it just means he's been allowed into the "circle" of highly regarded high-dollar art photographers, like Jeff Wall, Thomas Struth, etc... And is now able to print limited edition, BIG dollar prints. I'm glad he's been able to attain such a great level of success. I'd certainly like to be in a financial place such as his. However much I like his work, you still have to put yourself out there, and show your work to the highly-regarded "circles". Very few get accepted, much less have the ability to have such a long "run" of success and fame he has had.

Didn't all 3 of them mentioned above train/study under the Becher's?

-Dan

[Mark Sawyer]

Paying such a price for such a thing is performance art in itself, and a telling comment on the decadence of the ultra-wealthy.

[Leigh]

You forgot Oscar... WTFO. :D

- Leigh

[Jeffrey Sipress]

No, really, my image was like that one, but not 'just' like it. Close enough that if I happened to be lucky enough to have a renowned 'art critic' or gallery owner admire my work enough, convince other like kind to do the same, call in the media, and truck my stuff around the country, my little portfolio would be worth millions. And more when I'm dead. It starts with just one 'respected' critic/gallery getting the ball rolling.

I have nothing against Gursky or any way successful photographer. I have difficulty with modern art marketing. Not just photography marketing either. Four million dollars??!?!?? Let's get real, people. Rich man's disease is out of control.

How many galleries have you walked into and said almost immediately 'How did this guy get this show and command those prices? I see more creative and technical prowess on the LF Forum and other online image sites'. Happens all the time. Life's not fair. Art is subjective. Just like me, we are all entitled to our own stupid opinions. Please leave your millions in my mailbox, thank you.

[Ben Syverson]

The grapes aren't usually so sour in California

[Greg Blank]

Brian, I found that video was helpful. I have not seen Gursky, that is conscienously seen his work before.

To other posters: I did find things that I liked about some of the imagery. It is a huge amount of money to have one piece command. I don't care for that specific piece. In general the comments related to the ridiculously high value of some art is founded and yet- no one in honesty would turn down that money if the money was unconditionally- or the conditions were acceptable and handed to "Them". Yet if you have that money and are willing to spend it upon something you value its not someone elses place to tell you how to spend it in my opinion, unless the seller choses not to sell. That is how it is, in a free market economy and more realistically in all the worlds workings. Could the money do many others things, yes, and some of them might have been more positive social statements.

[Curt]

Bravo Foxtrot Delta

Papa Oscar Sierra

[Greg Lockrey]

You guys just don't have a true understanding of what "art" is.... plus it's BIG!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=DanielStone;802701] . . . . Didn't all 3 of them mentioned above train/study under the Becher's?/QUOTE]

I know Gursky did. I think the others did as well but I'm not sure about them.

[Brian Ellis]

Paying such a price for such a thing is performance art in itself, and a telling comment on the decadence of the ultra-wealthy.

People who pay that kind of price for any work of art are doing it as an investment, not just because they like the work. So unless it bothers you that people also buy stock, bonds, real estate, etc. as an investment it shouldn't bother you that people buy art as an investment. Personally I like the fact that they're buying art, especially photography, rather than something else.

[jnantz]

thanks for the link brian
i have never been familiar with his work
but now ... i guess i am a little bit more.

[John Kasaian]

Its a nice enough minimalist color landscape, but that much loot could feed, clothe and medicate a mighty big chunk of the third world!

[Greg Blank]

Or go into some rich war lords pocket.

[Colin Graham]

Its a nice enough minimalist color landscape, but that much loot could feed, clothe and medicate a mighty big chunk of the third world!

Well, there are much bigger piles being thrown around for much more frivolous stuff. Should art really be tightening it's belt first?

From watching some footage of his work process, he seems to spend a great deal of time and money on the process. He's not some geezer (like me) flogging the local scenery and processing them in a plywood sink.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

When photography finally reaches the (price) level of the arts, you envious nagging bastards should be celebrating with an expensive bottle of single malt instead of howling on this website !

[Colin Graham]

I'll drink to that.

[coops]

All this discussion about what art is is fine, but I can see the wife/husband of some incredibly wealthy person saying " that would look great on the large wall in the dining room and the color matches the curtains perfectly. I want it" Sold. I guess some folks buy photographs like they were furniture. color coordinated.

[Helen Bach]

Jeff Wall, Thomas Struth, etc...

Didn't all 3 of them mentioned above train/study under the Becher's?


Andreas Gursky and Thomas Struth did study under the Bechers at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf but I don't think that Jeff Wall ever did. Close ties, however. Jeff Wall was offered the Chair of Photography after Bernd Becher left, but (decided against it after a student pointed a loaded gun at him) that "fell through owing to some unfortunate circumstances*."

*Quote from The Düsseldorf School of Photography by Stefan Gronert.

[Ben Syverson]

When photography finally reaches the (price) level of the arts, you envious nagging bastards should be celebrating with an expensive bottle of single malt instead of howling on this website !
Ha... it's true. I wonder if a photograph will ever become the world's "most expensive artwork." So far, painting has us beat by a couple orders of magnitude! So it might take 50 or 100 years.

[John Kasaian]

When photography finally reaches the (price) level of the arts, you envious nagging bastards should be celebrating with an expensive bottle of single malt instead of howling on this website !

I've got a McMansion I'd like to sell you!:D
I'll celebrate with a bottle of Champagne---a big bubble certainly deserves the company of lots of little ones;)

[atlcruiser]

I like it.....I like it a lot. Once I read the history of the picture I liked it even more.

The picture is worth exactly what was paid for it not more or less. Who are we to question the how or why of the value of any item such as this?

[bobwysiwyg]

.. Who are we to question the how or why of the value of any item such as this?

Because we are allowed to would be my first guess. ;)

[Dani3D]

I love Gurski's work. If a football player can make 20M a year I don't know a reason to ban artists out of success. Specially if they create a whole new style like this guy.

A different discussion is why somebody, a single particular most of the times, is paying such amount. It's obviously an investment but also a way to put loads of money out of inflation cycles and maybe do some profit.

I guess we'll see art prices increasing exponentially just before next financial crisis. That might be the reason I'm seeing so many brand new art galleries here in London, they're anticipating it.

[Ben Syverson]

A lot of people have been scratching their heads over what kind of individual would spend this kind of money on a photograph, and how they can live with themselves.

Before you convict this anonymous art buyer in absentia, consider that they are most likely a billionaire rather than just a millionaire, and probably give sums larger than $4 million to charity. I won't touch the moral argument beyond that, except to say that in this society, like it or not, you're allowed to accrue as much wealth as you can.

To those who question whether the photo is worth $4.3M: it unquestionably is. There were other bidders who were willing to pay nearly as much. There are plenty of folks who would look at our purchases of expensive brass lenses with just as much horror, but that giant petzval is definitely worth $2000 if people are fighting to pay it.

[E. von Hoegh]

"Worth" and "cost" are not the same.

[Ben Syverson]

"Worth" and "cost" are not the same.
That's a snappy line, but it's not true. "Worth" also means "cost." The word has multiple meanings.

[E. von Hoegh]

That's a snappy line, but it's not true. "Worth" also means "cost." The word has multiple meanings.

Fine. "Worth" and "price", then.:)

[Steve Smith]

To those who question whether the photo is worth $4.3M: it unquestionably is.

It is only unquestionably worth it to some people. To the majority of people it is not worth it. I think sales like this do the art and photography world more harm than good as the average person looks at this and prices for other pieces of contemporary artwork and wonder what on earth is going on.


Steve.

[Ben Syverson]

It is only unquestionably worth it to some people.
Hmm. That's how monetary exchange for goods and services works.

Don't confuse cost with value. "Worth" can mean either.

A $2500 DSLR is worth exactly $2500, because that's how much it costs. To some people, it won't have enough value to justify the cost. "Not worth it," they'll say. But the original camera is still worth $2500. In our society, something is worth $2500 if someone else is willing to part with the cash.

That person may go home to a cheap camera their father gave them that has sentimental value. To them, it's worth a lot, but if it went on eBay, it may only cost $10. In that case, the camera is both priceless and worth $10.

[Ben Calwell]

I'm inspired now to start poking around in my house and backyard for a likely 4 million dollar scene.....

[Greg Blank]

With a ten dollar camera,...in a popular American CC company advertising and marketing sort of way "Priceless" :)
Use a Holga! Or a lens baby :D


I'm inspired now to start poking around in my house and backyard for a likely 4 million dollar scene.....

[Mark Sawyer]

While I don't know the file size the print was made from, the price per pixel is probably quite reasonable...

[John NYC]

It doesn't surprise me at all that on a forum where 50-150 year old technology is the subject at hand that modern art, approaches and thought are not appreciated by the majority.

Even with that said, it seems illogical that more than a few people here consider a wet plate image that can make a portrait of a face look like some sort of metallic cartoonish (bulging eyes, for instance) visage -- compared to how that person looks in real life --don't consider that case a manipulated image on the exact same order as a digital image manipulated with photoshop.

But "Whiskey" ... meaning "whatever" in this case.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm inspired now to start poking around in my house and backyard for a likely 4 million dollar scene.....

Good luck. Please be sure to let us know how that works out for you.

[Greg Blank]

Yes there are simply some that simply don't get it. I happen to like Modern art, do I swallow the assumption that every piece made by a said "Established artist suits my taste or likes "No". The overriding problem is that in the Art community, there is brown nose mentality "as in everywhere else" that points a finger at you if you have the balls to say this POS sucks. But if some buyer likes the piece that Gurskey hates.....what is said of that? I have made things I could not like and actually found people liking them enough to buy them....its a veird world and it gets stranger all the time. I heard another much more sucessful artist/painter, than myself once saying, if I make art to make money I have diluted what its about for me, sometimes I like what I created and other times I detest it.

As I stated earilier I like some of Gurskeys work now that I have seen it :) However $4 million something buys a lot of beer and chili dogs. I like them better than to spend say a few dollars for that one, but if you like the piece enough I can make you something similar.....payable in chili dogs and beer :D



It doesn't surprise me at all that on a forum where 50-150 year old technology is the subject at hand that modern art, approaches and thought are not appreciated by the majority.

Even with that said, it seems illogical that more than a few people here consider a wet plate image that can make a portrait of a face look like some sort of metallic cartoonish (bulging eyes, for instance) visage -- compared to how that person looks in real life --don't consider that case a manipulated image on the exact same order as a digital image manipulated with photoshop.

But "Whiskey" ... meaning "whatever" in this case.

[Tony Karnezis]

From watching some footage of his work process, he seems to spend a great deal of time and money on the process. He's not some geezer (like me) flogging the local scenery and processing them in a plywood sink.

Colin, the art that comes out of your plywood sink might not be "important" to the art world, but it sure is beautiful.

[Tony Karnezis]

And thanks for the video, Brian. It's always nice to learn about photographers and their work.

[Dani3D]

Well, no mercy:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150465698476201&set=a.85037061200.105922.30776731200&type=1&ref=nf

[dperez]

I think it is laughable that people take cheap shots at Gursky because his pictures are fetching millions.

First off, have you seen the man work? He is incredibly meticulous, technically sound, and contemplative. From what I have read and seen in videos, he's also a very modest man, despite his success. There is a good multi-part video of him on youtube, watch it and you might develop a greater appreciation for his photography. I for one dig Gursky's photography.

-DP

[Dani3D]

I agree the guy is a genius, his work is the most intriguing and brilliant of all the current Dusseldorf's. A problem with watching the images on a computer screen is that all his work is made to be seen in BIG size, all the rhythm and small meaningful details disappear on an small jpeg.

I still remember first time I saw "99 cent" or some of his others: I got first perplexed, then amazed... And now I like more Burtkynsky.

[goamules]

The sale price, and the work are two different things. I'll address just the former.

If one of us photographers makes $50,000 a year (laughable), it would take 80 years to make 4 million dollars. Thousands of photographers are taking shots and cannot get $200 for a print. They would have to sell 20,000 prints to make that money.

Did a print from Stieglitz, Struss, or Adams get that kind of money when they were alive? Hardly. Do they now? I could have bought a Curtis print the other day for a couple hundred dollars at auction.

Today there are very, very few people that hold a very, very large amount of the wealth of the world. They are making more money on interest each year than most people will make in a lifetime. And they try to gain even more wealth and respect by buying at any cost. Buying a print, or a turd out of my backyard, for millions, is a fragile investment. It's not like investing in stocks and bonds as the person above said. At least those have a semblance of value in the potential of the company. A print is only worth what two people say it's worth. One day one of those multi-millionaires may step up to say it's worth even more. Or not. It really doesn't matter to them, it's a drop in the bucket. But like winning the lottery, your chances of being discovered and having this class throw millions at you are very slim.

Is the print worth it? Is that item in my backyard?

[Greg Blank]

Is 50k laughable because you can or can not make that?



If one of us photographers makes $50,000 a year (laughable), it would take 80 years to make 4 million dollars.

[Jay DeFehr]

Garrett,


A print is only worth what two people say it's worth.

The above is just not accurate. The Gursky print is valued within a market, the same way stocks and bonds are valued. If you believe stocks and bonds are valued on more substantial bases, you're likely to be very disappointed.

That a few people control most of the money is an effect of the Pareto principle, and not some evil conspiracy perpetrated by the elite. The Pareto principle underlies all of the 80/20 distributions, including the distribution of participation on this forum. The top 20% of contributors contribute 80% of the content, etc. In these kinds of distributions the mean and median values are widely separated, so that the second most active member contributes about 1/2 as much as the first ranked, the 10th most active about 1/10th, etc. This is an emergent property of social networks, and of markets, and not a coordinated effort or conspiracy, and explains why most members of this forum contribute almost nothing, and why most artists are unrecognized. Furthermore, this has always been true, including for Stieglitz, Struth and Adams. If you were to calculate total earnings by all photographers in their respective days, you'd find the same Pareto distribution; the top 20% of photographers earned 80% of the money.

Art investment (http://www.artasanasset.com/main/artinvesting.php) has proven remarkably stable over the centuries, while the market for turds is less well established.

[Brian C. Miller]

Jay, I think that when Garret says,


A print is only worth what two people say it's worth. One day one of those multi-millionaires may step up to say it's worth even more.

he means that two rich people say what the print is worth. After all, the artwork is being sold at an auction. Then the next time the art is auctioned, it may be worth more, or maybe the opening bid won't be met. When then Gursky was auctioned, there was a painting which was ignored. So the painting essentially lost value.

If somebody in the future buys the Gursky for more, then its value increases, if not, it decreases. The is true about anything where two rich guys want the same thing, and could be applied to a single toaster oven purchased at a junk store.

[goamules]

...The Gursky print is valued within a market, the same way stocks and bonds are valued. If you believe stocks and bonds are valued on more substantial bases, you're likely to be very disappointed...


Hey, good idea exchange! Brian, that's what I mean. If there is only one rich person who buys high, and no one else ever agrees, he's really a fool! Jay, I agree, the stock market (or the Dallmeyer market) are very based on emotion, and follow the leader. Like the art market. However, the art market is entirely based on that, isn't it? Stock price used to be, could be, should be based on price to earnings ratios and such. What is a painting on the wall going to earn? How is it going to do R&D and invent new products? etc....

And I totally believe in the 80/20 rule, I mention it all the time as I see the world turn around me. But with photographers, and using this $4M sale for the statistics, I'd say 1% of the photographers just made 99% of the money. And 1% of the rich are able to blow that kind of wad.

[Dani3D]

Also, Gurski knows the art market very well. If one only produces unique prints or very reduced series like this, and publishing only one or two photographic works a year he's manipulating effectively the market.

That's a high risk / high reward strategy for someone starting on the business. Doesn't mean this photo is the best ever, is more that is quite difficult to get a copy, hence the price.

[Jay DeFehr]

Garrett,

I think I know what you mean, but one sale does not a market make. If Gursky was an unknown artist, his work would never get into an auction at Christie's, let alone a dedicated one, which I believe was the case, and so no rich person's emotions could be attributed to the sale. Art is not valued exactly like stocks or bonds, but in a similar way. Gursky's work has a price performance based on sales and re-sales, of which the buyer likely was aware. Of course it's possible the work sold far beyond it's estimated market value, just like so many dot com stocks did during that bubble, but I hesitate to assume that's true.

As for the buying power of the rich, I think you vastly underestimate it. $4M doesn't represent a very significant art investment, and the buyer buys the right to say he owns the most expensive photo ever made (for as long as the status holds). To do the same with a painting would cost orders of magnitude more money. Photography, even the most expensive photography, is within the buying power of almost any even modestly rich person (if modestly rich can be a term). And besides, if the owner displays the photo in his board room , he might write it off of his tax debt ( I really have no idea if that's possible, but it wouldn't shock me to learn it is).

[Brian C. Miller]

Here's another post to consider: TOP: Flipperoo (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/flipperoo.html), by Mike Johnston. He postulates that there isn't enough good traditional art to go around, so we see what is happening now. The good painting have been sucked up by the museums and older private collections, and what's left in the free market are the fugly paintings, so collectors are turning to photographs. New art production should be regulated, thus assuring value to collectors and having a few to go around.

Personally, I really adhere to the philosophy that photography is the everyman's medium, and there should always be a supply of X as long as it can be made. The everyman should be able to both make it and afford it. The mind-bogglingly wealthy should not have exclusive access to good art. I have one print made from an AA negative, and I'm happy with it. I've decided that I'm not going to buy a digital print. As long as photo-chemical materials are available, that's what I'm going to buy for my walls.

[Greg Blank]

I certainly agree with buying traditionally made Photographic imagery. I have a few prints from other photographers & they are not scenics :)

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian,

I think you might be more philosophically aligned with Rodchenko than with Adams (an unapologetic capitalist), though I think both would have problems with your view. Unless I'm mistaken, at least a few of the other copies of Rhein II reside in institutions, on public display, but you seem to be suggesting some kind of anti-market in which anyone could own any work of art, which is in direct opposition to both the art market Adams enjoyed, and the ideals of the communists, who opposed private ownership. Maybe Edward Weston comes closest to your ideal, since he was an American with close ties to the communists, and priced his work so that almost anyone could afford to own it. The secondary market doesn't share Weston's spirit of community, and so his works are no longer affordable for many art lovers.

Johnston's tongue-in-cheek suggestion of regulating photographic production is obviously not realistic, but more importantly, makes the larger point. The production of top tier photos is regulated by the market itself, as reflected in the Pareto distribution. 80% of all photographers are outside the market. 20% of the remaining 20% earn 80% of the total market, and so on, so that there is always just enough photography to satisfy the market, and the rest is ignored. In other words, the value of any photo (and everything in a market system) is relative and not absolute.

[Greg Blank]

Thats all a very nice line of reasoning, but it neglects street fairs and shows. Where the common folk buy and sell. If the work is compelling and the price acceptable the work will or would sell. Simply put, folks "the middle class" do not have disposable income and with the advent of digital photography "Everyone is a Photographer". I am not stating this from a no knowledge reference. I have in past years sold 16x20 works for as much as $450.00 per print at street festivals. It all started going south after 911 and has been traveling there faster ever since. I should add I have not done a show since 911. Just been watching and waiting.

[John Kasaian]

I think it is laughable that people take cheap shots at Gursky because his pictures are fetching millions.

First off, have you seen the man work? He is incredibly meticulous, technically sound, and contemplative. From what I have read and seen in videos, he's also a very modest man, despite his success. There is a good multi-part video of him on youtube, watch it and you might develop a greater appreciation for his photography. I for one dig Gursky's photography.

-DP

FWIW I'm not criticizing Gursky's success. I am criticizing the notion that a collector would pay that much for a photograph.
If you had that much money burning a hole in your pocket, would you spend it all on a photograph?
Why?

[Jim Jones]

. . . Maybe Edward Weston comes closest to your ideal, since he was an American with close ties to the communists, and priced his work so that almost anyone could afford to own it. . . .

As I recall, around 1940 Weston raised his prices from $15 to $25 in a major exhibit so he wouldn't undercut photographers with a more luurious life style. He and Charis Wilson earned $65 a month during part of the Guggenheim travels for 8 or 10 photos and some descriptive information. That was a lot of money when men were enlisting in the armed forces for maybe $20 a month. Late in life he advised his sons never to sell any of his prints for less than $25. By then that was a bargain.

[John NYC]

FWIW I'm not criticizing Gursky's success. I am criticizing the notion that a collector would pay that much for a photograph.
If you had that much money burning a hole in your pocket, would you spend it all on a photograph?
Why?

It is possible the buyer was very rich. Not just rich. If you calculate what four million means to someone who is worth 25 billion, you might see it doesn't matter to them.

[E. von Hoegh]

Four million is to 25 billion as one is to 6250.

[Dani3D]

If you had that much money burning a hole in your pocket, would you spend it all on a photograph?
Why?

Several reasons. That's high finnance terrain, which I barely understand, but let's say you want to put some cash into assets before a crisis or an inflation cycle. Like if you know some central bank is going to print a lot of money (keep this in mind for the next year).

-You can buy gold, but it's a very volatile thing these days.
-You can buy silver or commodities (same problem).
-You can buy real state (if you're stupid enough).
-You can buy art you're confident is going to keep most of it's monetary value (you're taking a moderate risk).

Think on it as an investment, or as a shelter for money. As fiannancial instabilities arise, you'll see how this kind of art merchandise gets hotter.

[Brian C. Miller]

... but you seem to be suggesting some kind of anti-market in which anyone could own any work of art, which is in direct opposition to both the art market Adams enjoyed, and the ideals of the communists, who opposed private ownership. ...

No, Jay, I do not support command economies. Quite the opposite, and I'm referring exclusively to photographs. Beings that photographic images are reproducible in a wide variety of formats and qualities, everybody can own a print! Really, it is possible. Why shouldn't I be able to own a full-size print of Gursky's Rhine II? A print from, say, PixartPrints.com would be maybe $250, plus fees for Gursky himself. OK, I now have a print for my wall. No, it's not the $4.3M collector print. It isn't even "certified authentic." But it is something I can enjoy, if I were to enjoy a digitally edited view of the Rhine river printed in a gargantuan size.

This isn't a new concept. There's been at least a couple of painters, one of whom is Damien Hirst, who have issued "paint it yourself" kits with certificates of authenticity for the final product. All they did was include paint, paintbrush, certificate and seal, and of course instructions. (Hirst said that he included tin cans and string.) And the art establishment considers each one a valid work of art by the original artist! So there's no devaluation, and everybody goes away happy.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I actually like Gursky's work. For for what it is worth, how about this old quote:

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
Publilius Syrus (~100 BC)

still, 4.3 million for *any* photograph, no matter who, what, where or how, just seems unreal to me. Insane actually. I love art, and congrats for Gursky for pulling down that kind of coin, but I still think that kind of money for art is insane. For the record, I also think that 40 or 50 million for a Van Gogh "sunflower" painting is insane too.

One reason I think that way is, IMO, art should be out there for everyone to see and enjoy. But if you are spending millions on a single piece of art, your first inclination is to lock the artwork up in a nuke proof vault of some kind so that it never gets ruined or stolen. Then I think to myself, if art can never be seen, what true value does it really have?

:(

[Jay DeFehr]

Joseph,

Davinci's Mona Lisa is one of the most highly valued works in the world, and has been seen by millions of people from every country on earth, over centuries. Most great works are owned by institutions, and displayed for public viewing- in a well secured environment, no doubt, but not hidden in a dark vault, unseen by human eyes.

I wonder why so many seem to harbor such communal attitudes toward art, but not other products? I guess it's a start.

[John NYC]

Four million is to 25 billion as one is to 6250.

If that is as far as you are taking the analysis then you won't get the point of what I am saying.

[Brian C. Miller]

... For the record, I also think that 40 or 50 million for a Van Gogh "sunflower" painting is insane too.

"Thurston, whatever shall we buy to go with the new island we purchased?"
"Why, Lovey, what about that French palace you liked so much? We'll have it moved over, and put some of our Rembrandts and Van Goghs in it."
"Do you really think that palace will go well with Iceland?"

"Money, money, money ... it's a rich man's world!"

-- Brian "who bought the unlicensed paint-by-the-numbers Van Gogh kit on sale" Miller

[E. von Hoegh]

If that is as far as you are taking the analysis then you won't get the point of what I am saying.

I was just making a simple ratio. I think I understand your point quite well.

I

[Brian C. Miller]

Heard on the radio:

tim
pasadena, ca

Listen, ah, something clicked off in my head as I was listening to you tonight. I'm an artist and I'm a rather well-known artist, and I speak on the subject of art and what's happened to art. And, in, something just clicked tonight when you were talking about making things, over-making things, and making it less and less valuable. See, one of the things that happened when the arts changed about a hundred years ago, and they changed drastically with the Picaso-ization of art, um, is, is it was very easy to produce, and it was only valuable through promotion, i.e., Tom Wolf's book, "The Painted Word," which, which points this out very clearly. And, and so it was actually a lot of art that was intrinsically worthless. When for thousands of years we had uh extremely difficult art to produce and it was always very valuable. And and I it just clicked in my head tonight when you were talking about this I was thinking of Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" and that had to do with architecture but I think, uh, think one of the things that's happening is there are forces, as you're always saying, George, they're sort of working together whether they know it or not because I believe this this what's happened in this philosophical realm of art has affected values of things. So people so it legitimizes getting something for nothing. Because a lot of what's done in the arts is nothing, and and and certain, small amount of people it's very small get an awful lot of money for it.

So: The promotion of easily producible art leads to junk art. Therefore, the promotion of difficult to produce art should lead to fine art.

[gevalia]

Man I just love these conversations. You're all right and you're all wrong. No, one of you is right, you there, it's you.

[Brian Ellis]

I actually like Gursky's work. For for what it is worth, how about this old quote:

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
Publilius Syrus (~100 BC)

still, 4.3 million for *any* photograph, no matter who, what, where or how, just seems unreal to me. Insane actually. I love art, and congrats for Gursky for pulling down that kind of coin, but I still think that kind of money for art is insane. For the record, I also think that 40 or 50 million for a Van Gogh "sunflower" painting is insane too.

One reason I think that way is, IMO, art should be out there for everyone to see and enjoy. But if you are spending millions on a single piece of art, your first inclination is to lock the artwork up in a nuke proof vault of some kind so that it never gets ruined or stolen. Then I think to myself, if art can never be seen, what true value does it really have?

:(

Once again into the breach - "liking" it is beside the point for someone considering a purchase of a work of art for many millions of dollars. When an individual pays that kind of money for a work of art they're usually doing so as an investment pure and simple, little different than investing in stocks, bonds, real estate, whatever. They're not interested in actually looking at it. Do you like to look at the print-out of your book-entry stock purchases or the deeds to your real estate?

[dperez]

FWIW I'm not criticizing Gursky's success. I am criticizing the notion that a collector would pay that much for a photograph.
If you had that much money burning a hole in your pocket, would you spend it all on a photograph?
Why?

Yea I get your point. I guess if one has 4 million for a print, then they must have a lot more where that came from. It's just a drop in the bucket.

-DP

[John NYC]

Man I just love these conversations. You're all right and you're all wrong. No, one of you is right, you there, it's you.

What is your point exactly? This is a discussion forum, so it is natural that discourse takes place here. And it is natural that not everyone is going to have the same opinion.