List of the most expensive photographs

[John NYC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs

I'm sure everyone will have their "huh?" moments (as people have commented on the recent Gursky sale) when reading this. But for me, there is a much more questionable entry on this list than Gursky. (I like Gursky myself.)

At any rate, it's pretty interesting to see that the only photographers with more than one (and exactly two, actually) photos on the list are Gursky, Sherman, Stieglitz and Weston.

P.S. I did search before I posted this, but I could not find a thread where this list was referenced already. Maybe my LF search fu is not up to snuff.

[Darin Boville]

I posted the images from the list a few weeks ago on my blog. Note that my list is the *real* top ten, counting the three "99 cent" sales as separate sales.

http://www.biggercamera.com/2011/11/the-new-top-10/

I'm not quite sure what you are saying in relation to LF, but it looks like eight of the top ten were shot on LF. (Not sure about the Richard Prince image...)

--Darin

[Ting-Li Lin]

Gursky is one of the photographers that inspire me to jump into LF, although many of his images were digitally manipulated.

[ic-racer]

Petty cash by comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings).

[John NYC]

Petty cash by comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings).

I wonder if the galleries that do sales, like say Gagosian for "Woman III", take a 50% cut like many galleries do for living artists.

[Drew Wiley]

Instead, why not start a list of the biggest suckers in photo purchase history? I like
Gursky too, but consider him Fautography and in certain respects a candidate for
obscene conspicuous consumption spending. Just how long are those huge prints
under sunlight or hot halogens going to retain consistent color, before fading in patches? Seems to be a pretty dumb investment. But then I've known folks who spent 3 million bucks on a dining room paint job just to upstage the neighbors.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I do NOT consider Gursky a photographer. Maybe a legit art form in the bigger
scheme of things. Interesting, but not worthy of the same respect as a true photographer. Not the skill set of a serious painter either. Fauxtography. That's fine, but not my cup of tea. Different set of rules. So I'd scratch him off my list of prices
paid for actual photographs. Interpreting a scene is one thing, outright inventing it
or egregiously manipulating it, altogether a different game. Saw some Uelsman-like
work the other day that impressed me a lot more. It was very whimsical, but pre-Fauxtoshop and required quite a bit of darkroom skill. Kinda like expecting a Japanese sword-maker to actual forge and hone the steel, and not outsource it.
Craft counts too.

[Brian K]

Instead, why not start a list of the biggest suckers in photo purchase history? I like
Gursky too, but consider him Fautography and in certain respects a candidate for
obscene conspicuous consumption spending. Just how long are those huge prints
under sunlight or hot halogens going to retain consistent color, before fading in patches? Seems to be a pretty dumb investment. But then I've known folks who spent 3 million bucks on a dining room paint job just to upstage the neighbors.

Good point. They will not last long unless kept in a dark environment. If you go to the Aardenberg Imaging paper tests you'll see that fuji crystal fades very noticeably under normal viewing conditions after 35 years, and by 50 years is badly faded and by 70 years is trash. And that's with indirect lighting.

[ic-racer]

Motives for those purchases are varied, but if you DO have that much money, keeping it in a bank account is foolish. I suspect in many cases these are investments. They only need to be sold to the next 'investor' at a profit before deterioration.

Will Gerske re-print that if it fades? Maybe not, but if your shark starts to deteriorate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Physical_Impossibility_of_Death_in_the_Mind_of_Someone_Living) sometimes the original artist can help get a new one.

[Ting-Li Lin]

Well, I do NOT consider Gursky a photographer. Maybe a legit art form in the bigger
scheme of things. Interesting, but not worthy of the same respect as a true photographer. Not the skill set of a serious painter either. Fauxtography. That's fine, but not my cup of tea. Different set of rules. So I'd scratch him off my list of prices
paid for actual photographs. Interpreting a scene is one thing, outright inventing it
or egregiously manipulating it, altogether a different game. Saw some Uelsman-like
work the other day that impressed me a lot more. It was very whimsical, but pre-Fauxtoshop and required quite a bit of darkroom skill. Kinda like expecting a Japanese sword-maker to actual forge and hone the steel, and not outsource it.
Craft counts too.

I guess you don't consider Jeff Wall a photographer either, do you?

[Drew Wiley]

There have been all kinds of things done with photographic print media over the decades that I find interesting and even artistically relevant but wouldn't personally categorize as photographs. But when it comes to large scale work I have a lot more
admiration for someone like a true mural painter who has acquired a relatively sophisticated skill set and knowledge of pigments etc versus someone who merely does
what every Junior High student knows how to do in Photoshop to get from point A to
point B, and that thousands of folks around here do for an ordinary living.

[drew.saunders]

Petty cash by comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings).

$250,000,000 for "The Card Players"? I have "Dogs Playing Poker on Black Velvet" that I'll let go for 1/10th of that!

[ic-racer]

$250,000,000 for "The Card Players"? I have "Dogs Playing Poker on Black Velvet" that I'll let go for 1/10th of that!

I'll trade you for these two:

http://www.lovemarks.com/media/image/ninety_nine_html.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/Rhine.jpg

[paulr]

I think it's a remarkable and encouraging list simply because of its range. There are so many disparate approaches to photography, to art in general, represented in a relatively small number of names. Gursky, Sherman, Stieglitz, Adams, Steichen, Avedon, Prince, Lik, Mapplethorpe and ... Medvedev?

Imagine that party. You'd be hard pressed even to find fans of these artists congregating in any one place. I think that's pretty cool.



Well, I do NOT consider Gursky a photographer.

We're all entitled to our opinions, but really Drew, who cares? You're quibbling about a definition, which is not a point of fact but rather of social consensus. You're arguing with language. And when it's the language of the arts, and you stand in disagreement with the overwhelming majority curators, editors, critics, and historians, it might be time to choose another battle.

Reminds me of Grandpa Simpson defending his 49-star American flag, saying, "It'll be a cold, cold day in Hell when I recognize Missouri."

[paulr]

Petty cash by comparison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings).

That's for damn sure.

[Darin Boville]

I've developed a simple theory to explain the creation of modern art. It goes like this:

Over time (successful) art becomes larger in size, more colorful, easier to do.

That seems to fit the best selling photo list photo list as well as it fits any survey of modern art. :)

--Darin

[Drew Wiley]

Paul - I'll classify it any damn way I wish. And you might be pretty surprised how some museum curators actually talk about it over a dinner table instead of in a press release intended to attract museum ticket sales. That crowd doesn't intimidate me for even
ten seconds. There is no "language of the arts". We invent it; and it's just part of the
whole silly game. Show me someone who evaluates the image with their eyes instead
of thru a PR fad and that's someone I'll respect. Any jackass can pick up the lingo.

[paulr]

You can classify anything any way you wish; just don't expect the rest of the world to speak your made-up language.

And yes, I would be very surprised to hear about all your dinner table conversations with museum curators.

[Corran]

Does anyone else find one photographer calling another a "fauxtographer" hilariously asinine, especially when said "fauxtographer" sold just one of their photographs for more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetime?

[E. von Hoegh]

Does anyone else find one photographer calling another a "fauxtographer" hilariously asinine, especially when said "fauxtographer" sold just one of their photographs for more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetime?

Not at all. Price and popularity bear no relationship to merit in an artistic, or even technical, sense. I think the photographer to whom you refer is spot on.:)

[Jim Jones]

Does anyone else find one photographer calling another a "fauxtographer" hilariously asinine, especially when said "fauxtographer" sold just one of their photographs for more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetime?

Bernard Madoff raised more money than I'd want to in many lifetimes, but doesn't deserve respect for that. He was probably even less a photographer than a few of that top ten.

[Corran]

Price and popularity bear no relationship to merit in an artistic, or even technical, sense.

The "starving artist" mentality. Yes I'm sure all these incredibly detailed images of mountains and trees posted on this site are much more valid as "art" than incredibly detailed images of a 99c store.


Bernard Madoff raised more money than I'd want to in many lifetimes, but doesn't deserve respect for that. He was probably even less a photographer than a few of that top ten.

This is called a straw man argument. This statement has absolutely no relevance to anything.

[E. von Hoegh]

So, you (Corran) are saying that sale price is the sole test of merit. Sad.

[Corran]

No, I am not saying that at all. But the fact is Gursky has made a successful career as a PHOTOGRAPHER, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that people pay $X for his work and museums hold his work, and what anonymous internet photographer #573 has to say about his work is completely irrelevant.

At a more specific level, I do not wish to toil away in the darkroom and receive absolutely no return in either investment or recognition. So I am striving for sales and shows. What are you striving for? Personal enrichment?

[Brian C. Miller]

So, you (Corran) are saying that sale price is the sole test of merit. Sad.

Eh, but we're talking about the value, or lack of it, or should be valued at, a bunch of colors on pieces of paper.


This planet has — or rather had — a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.
-- Douglas Adams, in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (1979)

I'm sure the prints themselves feel very fine.

[Drew Wiley]

It's all just a game, and once you're mature enough in your own artistic shoes to figure
that out, then you realize that there's no suite of gurus or gods up there dictating the
rules. We make our own rules. For some people the prime directive is to make obscene
amounts money. Fine. That's called business. For others it's playing along with the
artsy fartsy trends of the moment and sucking up to the alleged experts. Fine. But I've certainly known my share of famous painters as well as photographers, and not one of them fit the artsy stereotypes, and most of them stuggled to make ends meet
during most of their own lifetimes. And if you don't like me coining the term Fauxtography, just plain too bad. My opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. Show me an art critic who can make prints as good as I can and I'll consider them an equal. Otherwise, it's all sideshow.

[georgl]

To be honest, I don't get it. Sure, there are always people with too much money...

I mean, these photographs are just prints and don't involve the original negative (if it even exists) - so it's just a copy. It's like a nice copy of a book, you pay some money for the printing, the leather cover, paper and of course for the artistic value - that's it.

But several million $ for a simple print? Come on... And when he prints a new one?

[paulr]

Does anyone else find one photographer calling another a "fauxtographer" hilariously asinine, especially when said "fauxtographer" sold just one of their photographs for more than most of us will earn in our entire lifetime?

Well, I've voiced the opinion that it's assinine, but not for reasons of dollars changing hands.

It's just been my experience that the fight for definitions and categories appeals most to those who don't have anything substantive to argue. The fight usually involves an exclusionary move: That's not art; That's not photography; That's not poetry; That's not Jazz. Of course, history almost always shows us that what we consider classic examples of a category today came under fire for innauthenticity when they were new. But it doesn't matter—people entrenched in the status quo don't like the prospect of dilution that's implied by their world getting bigger. And they don't like the emphasis being shifted farther away from them. Fair enough, but it's annoying when they act righteous and don't acknowledge their rhetoric as defensive and self serving.

I notice that the people who actually have the power to influence history tend to embrace expansion, not exclusion. If photography curators see remarkable, relevant new work that stretches the old definitions of photography, they'd rather expand those definitions (and the world they serve as steward) rather than let they guys down the hall claim the work.

You could argue this is self-serving as well, but—at least since the beginning of the modern era—the history of arts has been one of expansion. A curator's or critic's willingness to include, to expand, to nurture evolution, seems like getting out of the way of what artists do naturally more than like any kind of artificial manipulation.

In the end, though, the primary reason we have these labels and categories is for the purpose of communication. If I ask you what kind of art does Bob make and you say Photography, I don't see it primarily as a political stance; I see it as information. You're telling me what floor of the museum to go to, what shelf at the magazine store, what to type into google.

The artists I admire most don't really care about the labels; they care about their work. Chris Jordan took some heat here when he switched from 8x10 to stiched digital. Some people actually accused him of no longer being a photographer. He didn't step up to the fight, because philosophically and politically, he doesn't have a dog in that linguistic race. He just wants to do his work. It so happens that it's the photography curators, editors, and grant givers who have embraced his work. If he's smart—and he is—he'll go along with the label they give him and not worry about some guy online calling him a fauxtographer.

[Corran]

paulr, you said what I was thinking better than I could. I wasn't trying to latch on to the dollar amount specifically (though that was the topic of the thread) but instead the obvious success of Gursky as a photographer.

[Drew Wiley]

Like it or not it's a fad. Giant prints with digital manipulation. Basically 70's themes printed as huge installations with a few tweaks done the lazy way. At least the old
school tabloids tooks the time to use pinking shears and Elmer's glue when then wanted to paste Elvis' head on Bigfoot. Not a knock on Gursky's vision - he has a
wonderful sense of scale and balance - but get real - new it ain't. And every kid around nowadays knows how to do this stuff. The real work is done by the folks who have to mount this stuff. I've got nothing against this kind of technique per se. But let's see what it's worth in a generation or two, provided it hasn't literally faded into oblivion. Works this big are installations. You can't really preserve or collect them. As an investment they don't make any sense at all. My guess is that there are some stockmarket jerks out there who have money to waste and want to impress
their social peers with something some art critic thinks is trendy. It's just like interior
design. I call it Fauxtography not because I have anything against either photomontages or digital workflow, but because of the contempt I have for artsy fads
and those who buy into them.

[Drew Wiley]

Paul - I'd say it's some of the critics who are stuck with tunnel vision and largely
copying each other. They classify and hem things in by terminology, so I can do the
same to their trade. Stereotypes deserve stereotyping. "Modernism" has run so amuk
trying to come up with something new all the time that it's come full circle more than
once. But this is what you've gotta do if you want to sell tickets to a modern art musuem venue. Everybody knows the game, even the curators (at least the one's I've
known knew it was a game too - they were a lot sharper than the invevitable groupies). "Success" is a very plastic term. Seems like the standard some of you are
using is pretty shallow and mercenary.

[paulr]

Drew, you're talking about technique, not vision. Gursky uses the technique that happens to serve his vision. I haven't seen a single piece of wall text, or a review, or critical essay that trumpeted his work because of any supposed novelty of his methods. They talk about what his work shows and how it shows it. You know, art stuff.

I don't know how his vision could be called a fad, because I don't know of anyone else who's work is terribly similar. I agree, in very general terms, that enormous prints have been a trend over the last couple of decades, but I see this fueled by some things besides fashion: 1) capability. It's easier and more affordable than ever to make a big print. 2) the shift of the center of the bluechip art world from medium-sized spaces in SOHO to the enormous spaces of Chelsea. Small work like mine in the bigger Chelsea galleries would look like a spot on the wall. 3) ambition of photographers to compete for attention against painters, who have been working wall-sized for many decades (is that a fad too?).

FWIW, much of the new photography that I've seen in the last couple of years has retreated from wall-sized.

I don't get your claim that big prints are "installations" that can't be collected or preserved. Have you seen Monet's water lillies? Any number of Delacroix paintings? These works could blot out the sun over anything Gursky ever printed.

Your guess that all this work is collected by "stockmarket jerks" is indeed a guess. Those jerks are out there, no doubt, but so are serious collectors. Why don't you talk to one or two of them? Or seek out some interviews? You might find that some collectors are as passionate about photography as you are.

[Drew Wiley]

Paul - do a little of your own homework and you'll find out just how closely I'm connected to one of the most famous muralists of the 20th century. I was given all the
actual sets of pigments. Even the watercolor yellows don't fade after decades of direct sunlight. That's why I term extremely big photogarphic prints installations. And again, I never denied Gursky artistic legitimacy - but I do have the right to classify
some of this as marginal to photography. It's painting via computer. And it's precisely
because I've had so many business encounters with the ultra-wealthy that I can make
some nasty stereotypes about them, like that most of them are skinflints but will throw
ridiculous sums at art they perceive as trendy, even though a lot of it looks like things
they could not afford back when they started out, but is largely passe today (perhaps
that's at least one component to this revival of the pop art look at larger scale - in fact, I know of one of the most successful practitioners of it actually claiming this).
But stereotypes are not universals - not all wealthy folks are jerks, and probably 90%
of what curators do is to take care of collections, then on the side try to figure out
how to finance it. I know the game and could play by these rules if I wanted to. Probably several people on this forum know what I mean. You choose. You gotta make
a living somehow. You go commercial, stock, or do something else entirely and take
photographs you really want to. Once you're married to the "fine art" scene as a career
you give up a lot of liberty unless you're independently wealthy. Most starving artists
("artistes") deserve to starve. But most really good artists starve for a long time too.
A very tiny number will get lucky. But the pricing of some contemporary work is beyond
obscene. Heck, I can remember instances when even an AA "Moonrise" print would sell
for tens times more at an auction than one of the established print dealers would ask
for it at the same time. I'd hardly call that a smart investment.

[Tony Evans]

I'm reminded of the old saying that "to set record prices, all that is needed are two fools and a good auctioneer".

[paulr]

Drew, I don't think anything can be gained by slinging around nasty stereotypes. I don't know enough "ultra wealthy" people to comment on them. If you been forced to spend time with rich assholes, I hope you at least got paid.

But I do know serious art collectors. And I know some curators. And some art historians. And some artists, including successful ones and struggling ones, and even a few who make big prints. All I can say is that none of your mean-spirited characterizations match my experience of these people.

Or of "the game." I know a number of people who pursue fine arts as a career, which I suppose constitutes "playing the game" as it does in any career. All I can conclude from their experience is that there is no formula that guarantees success, even for talented ones. Rules of decorum my help keep you from getting kicked out of the room, but they don't offer any kind of easy or predictable path.

I'm just hearing one straw man argument after another, put to the service of a very prejudicial position on what is and isn't photography. This is not a line of inquiry that's going to illuminate anything; it's a tantrum.

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry to disappoint you, Paul, but I've never been kicked out of any curator's office, nor have any of them been kicked out of my house. However, honesty and some serious spice can be a real asset. The most difficult part is keeping some of these guys
sober (literally). Another game I don't like to play. But there are a lots of incorrect
sterotypes out there. There's a particularly good museum venue in our general neighborhood, and what they unquestionably consider their crown jewels in the photograph collection almost never gets exhibited. Their role is to preserve it for posterity. What gets exhibited is related to public interest strategy, often traveling major exhibits going from city to city with fed funding or whatever, and also suitable for selling a sufficient quantity of tickets to add some additional cashflow. Museums dedicated to the whole ethos of modernism seem to think they need things like disembowled sharks or rotting cabbages just for the attention the controversy engenders. What inside people actually think of that stuff might not be polite to quote here. So 'scuse me if I don't worship the alleged kingmakers of the art world. And any
one who does is definitely little league.

[paulr]

One trait I've seen among the people you call "kingmakers" is a grudging reluctance to play that part. Curators I've met, and others who I know through essays and interviews, feel burdened by the unavoidable power over artists that the position foists on them. They're charged with building and stewarding a collection. It's an unfortunate byproduct of this position that some individuals (like Stieglitz or Szarkowski) end up wielding such disproportionate power. This is a longwinded way of saying, I wouldn't expect you to worship anyone for curating a collection, and most of the people who do wouldn't want you to either.

There's a big gap, though, between worshiping a person and dismissing a whole class of such people outright. Both are simpleminded positions.

You mention a curator whose choices you disagree with. Fair enough. It's highly likely that the exhibition goals of any given institution will clash with your tastes or mine. There are always other institutions, other curators.

In your neck of the woods you have Sandra Philips at SFMOMA, who rocks. She does as good a job as anyone I know of balancing the demands of acquisitions and exhibitions, fundraising and academic rigor, and keeping the institution accessible to a range of tastes and ideas about the medium.

I bet that for every straw man you set up and knock down, I can name at least one actual person who is influential in the field and who doesn't fit any of your stereotypes.

[Drew Wiley]

Last time I was in SFMOMA some of the staff ended up following me around because I could explain the featured artist way better than their official monograph could. But it was obviously someone I appreciated already, otherwise I wouldn't have attended. But I "saw" the work, rather than just its historical or demographic context, or whatever. But I'm surprised that the discussion of art is supposed to be dainty like ballet. I thought a lot of art history involved perpetual revolution, ideological warfare including stereotypes and self-ridicule of the medium, pretty much a bare knuckles game. So if I perceive the cult of Modernism as having stagnated into something virtually Byzantine in its worship of novelty for novelty's
sake, to such an extent that is starting to become boring with cyclic repetition, it's
my right to do it. To me photography is just as much about the hunt as the kill, and
I'd rather spend my whole life enjoying the experience, and maybe never getting that one shot that really defines me, than pulling some geek stunt to fake it with a
computer. It's about discovery, perception, and sharing. My rules. Gursky can play by his own rules, but I'm perfectly free to pigeonhole that as Fauxtography. Doesn't
mean I dislike his actual images - but it is legitimate ideological warfare. If I wanted
to paint, I would still be painting with real paint and not doing it the fast-food way.

[Corran]

I'm sorry but calling digital manipulation "faking it" is just ludicrous. I don't understand this air of superiority from doing pure darkroom work. Everyone needs to get over it. Digital is here and it is just as valid a medium as anything else. Do you lambaste every acrylic painting as faux painting because it's not watercolor? Or does your painter need to make his own out of crushed berries? Come on, where does it end? Are you shooting film? Well you're a fauxtographer because you aren't shooting wet plate collodion with your own formula. Oh and you better be making your glass plates yourself too.

I readily admit that I am sure you have vastly more knowledge and connections in the art world than me but that doesn't matter to me. Nothing should be deemed false art because you don't like the medium or manipulation technique.

[Jim Jones]

I'm reminded of the old saying that "to set record prices, all that is needed are two fools and a good auctioneer".

I've been to a lot of farm and estate auctions. There it only takes two buyers and an auctioneer to make an auction. A really sharp auctioneer can dispense with one of the buyers. Considering the selling price of some art, city auctioneers might do even better.

[paulr]

Do you lambaste every acrylic painting as faux painting because it's not watercolor?

Anything that's not fresco is just a lazy attempt to deceive the gods.

[Drew Wiley]

Read my lips... I never called it "false art" or anything like that. Nor have I ever depreciated digital technology as a tool. And in the case of at least Gursky, I have
repeatedly recongized his exceptional skill at composition per se. Let me use an
analogy. A museum venue might have a photo curator and a contemporary painting
curator. They probably cannot afford another staff member, let alone another wing
to the facility. So you've got two barns, one for donkeys and one for horses. Someone gives you a mule...what do you do with it? If you put it into the horse barn, it doesn't make it a horse. But I wouldn't be as contemptuous about all this if
it wasn't for the theme of the whole thread about astronomical pricing. A damn C-print digitally generated then serially cranked out by machine??? It's not even a unique piece. It's all about decor and owner status (conspicuous consumption).
No way this thing is going to be around for an Antiques Roadshow appraisal in fifty
years. It will get changed just like the curtains.

[paulr]

No way this thing is going to be around for an Antiques Roadshow appraisal in fifty years. It will get changed just like the curtains.

Just like Warhol's prints from the early '60s, and DuChamp's readymades from 1917. Forgotten and worthless. I'm learning so much about art from this conversation.

[John NYC]

Read my lips... I never called it "false art" or anything like that. Nor have I ever depreciated digital technology as a tool.

You do seem to imply in several of your posts that Gursky doing photoshop manipulation has made his art less impressive to you. If you are not saying that, and I have interpreted what you are trying to convey wrongly, I think it is a good guess that others here have too.

[Jim collum]

Fauxtography is not a term of endearment... it's there along with digisnapper, pixelographer and all the other terms said with implied double quotes and a slight sneer.... Whether you meant it or not, what comes through in your posts is contempt for work produced digitally.

[Kirk Gittings]

Just like Warhol's prints from the early '60s, and DuChamp's readymades from 1917. Forgotten and worthless. I'm learning so much about art from this conversation.

;)

[Drew Wiley]

Paul - a Duchamp print is likely to sit in some carefully protected museum case somewhere and might reasonably be treated with refixing or deacidification etc if necessary. It's the kind of thing a serious collector might think of too, because it can
be safely stored. A gigantic C-print installation is like having an elephant as a house pet. The whole idea is to display it, and the inevitable sunlight or hot display halogens
are going to affect the color prematurely. It's not even like one of those big pop art
installations made with auto enamel or whatever. So when speaking of intrinsic long
term value, one's gotta raise for quesitons. And in terms of artistic influence, what is
there there either hasn't been done before or is so special that it's going to warrant
long-term influence? Other than a bit of PS Mickey-Mouse, it's not that exceptional.
Just being big big is a fad. People will get bored with it. The next "big" thing in fine art venues will be Minox contact prints! (But relax - I'm not really that mean - poking fun
at the establishment is part of the game too.)

[Drew Wiley]

Yes Kirk, I despise Warhol. In fact, I regard the whole Pop Art era as the dark ages of American art. And yes Jim, Fauxtography is meant as a term of contempt, but in relation to perception, not technique. I despise it when it becomes a substitute for really perceiving the world. As part of simple process getting from point A to point B, capture to print, it's just another valid tool parallel to film and darkroom, or perhaps
supplementary in some kind of hybrid workflow. Tools are one thing, the philosophy
behind them another. And it's getting to be a pretty precarious slope at the moment.
Photoshop is getting to be LSD in a picture frame.

[sanchi heuser]

I'd highly recommend to read Calvin Tomkins "Marcel Duchamp:A Biography"
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss/180-4100341-9325062?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=calvin+tompkins+Marcel+Duchamp&x=12&y=20

BTW:
Someone said Dimitri Medwedew?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/16/medvedevs-photo-gets-1-7m-at-charity-auction/
http://eng.medvedev.kremlin.ru/personal_photo

[paulr]

Yes Kirk, I despise Warhol. In fact, I regard the whole Pop Art era as the dark ages of American art.

We all gather that, even without you having said it. No one's going to argue against statements of taste.

No one's going to be especially interested either. I don't expect you to care what flavor ice cream I don't like, so I'm not going to waste anyone's time by sharing.

But expressions of taste go past boring, all the way to annoying, when you try to state them as facts and impose them on other people. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that's what you're doing. None of your reasoning about relative worth among periods of art, none of your statements that try to denigrate the dominant styles of a period (often a decades-long period) as a fad, have any logical coherence. You're just rationalizing why you don't like things.

We can all relax and know that Art doesn't need us to save it from anything. Which is fortunate, because all the online ranting in the world would be powerless to do so.

[D. Bryant]

Yes Kirk, I despise Warhol. In fact, I regard the whole Pop Art era as the dark ages of American art. And yes Jim, Fauxtography is meant as a term of contempt, but in relation to perception, not technique. I despise it when it becomes a substitute for really perceiving the world. As part of simple process getting from point A to point B, capture to print, it's just another valid tool parallel to film and darkroom, or perhaps
supplementary in some kind of hybrid workflow. Tools are one thing, the philosophy
behind them another. And it's getting to be a pretty precarious slope at the moment.
Photoshop is getting to be LSD in a picture frame.

....

[Brian C. Miller]

I don't expect you to care what flavor ice cream I don't like, so I'm not going to waste anyone's time by sharing.

Ice creams I don't like:
Turkey, gravy, and cranberries.
Brussel sprouts, broccoli and avacado.
Pickled pig's feet, horse radish, and lima beans, with lecithin swirls.

You will never get these 10 seconds of your life back. Ever.

[Kirk Gittings]

Brings back some very funny remembrances actually. At a 60's alcohol and drug party at Dennis Hoppers' house in Taos. I actually stumbled and stuck my elbow through the glass of a Warhol portrait of DH and he was pissed (in more ways than one!) and I quickly made an exit.

Anyway, I try to see the difference between what I like from what I believe (through study usually of art history, going to museums etc.) to be important art. This is necessary because there is allot of "important" art throughout history that I don't like. I am also not naive enough to think that I am even qualified on my own to be knowledgeable about what is important in the history of art so I read allot and visit museums frequently. To believe and defend a position that doesn't attempt to separate the two is frankly a bit provincial and narcissistic, but that is allot of what I see expressed here.

Warhol is one of those artists who I don't care much for personally, but having been an aspiring artist at a major art school during his heyday, I witnessed his impact (impact is not necessarily good or bad but his impact was great) and can see his place in the history of art.

[Drew Wiley]

Be annoyed then, Paul. Maybe I'm annoyed when NYC thinks it's the Vatican of taste and can pontificate on what is relevant or not. I can appreciate the selection of venues you enjoy and the fact that people are more likely to spend serious money on
wall art than they are here. Pop art might have been a healthy interlude making fun
of the status quo back in the day, but now its a Byzantine entrenched regime itself.
Warhol started that trend of man/machine hybridization between graphic art and painting. Clever. But now Photoshop has turned it into an epidemic. It will wear thin
in time. Everything does. And maybe then folks will start perceiving that the ole West
Coast School of high craftsmenship and straight photography isn't so dated or backwards after all. Maybe what this country does need at this time is a good dose
of strong regionalism to thumb its nose once again at the big city fashionistas.

[Drew Wiley]

Of course, Kirk, I can understand how in the bigger scheme of things of art history per
se one has to look at the significance of influences. In fact, without going into names,
I can recognize the sheer brilliance of some of the persons in the current pop art redux
and appreciate their compositional skill. I can even appreciate the wit of M&M though I detest rap music in general. At the museum level I enjoy all kinds of venues, though my
work schedule allows me limited opportunities. But war has always been part of art.
Heck, all the social realism of the 30's which folks today think of as old fogey (and I
don't particularly care for myself) was in its day thought of as radical and rebellious,
and would even get an artist on the FBI list. Things go in cycles. And at least around
here its the young techies that are beginning to regard digital technique as daily life,
but old school film and darkroom as real art. Hence the surprising connection between
the traditional West Coast school of EW,BW,AA etc and what is gaining interest once
again among the younger set. They seem to appreciate hands-on technique. I really don't care what goes on in NYC. If I can sell a print a month I'll be doing well.

[Mark Sawyer]

I don't see how anything can be considered art without a pixie in it.

You're all a bunch of fakers...

[paulr]

Be annoyed then, Paul. Maybe I'm annoyed when NYC thinks it's the Vatican of taste and can pontificate on what is relevant or not.

I don't speak for the city of New York, but I'm pretty sure it and its institutions could care less about what you think, or what I think, for that matter. Can you show me an example of someone pontificating? If this city's institutions are on any kind of pedestal, it's because they've managed to attract interest from elsewhere. If they stop doing that, the world's eyes will wander. As they do often enough already. There is no one art vatican. If anything there's more interesting stuff going on in Berlin than there is here. The Vennice biennalle seems like at least as big a deal as the Whitney's. And the internet is democratizing influence more and more every day, which I think is a good thing overall.


I can appreciate the selection of venues you enjoy ...

If you look through this thread, you'll notice that I haven't said a word about what art or what venues I enjoy. As I said previously, I don't have any expectations that my personal tastes would be of interest to anyone else, especially in a conversation that's about something as impersonal as record prices.

[Drew Wiley]

What's impersonal about record prices? It a remarkable show-window on both demographics and the whole parasitic groupie mentality surrounding contemporary art.
If it's not a curator pontificating (which I agree, is normally not the case) it is the
surrounding school of fish who benefit from all the hype financially. Want to get rich -
pull off a big scam and not a little one. Where better to do it?

[Kirk Gittings]

Soooooooo........ how exactly is this bad for photography?

[Corran]

Well obviously only the best photographers get no recognition or sales and have to work a 9-5 to afford their "professional photography" that everyone else is too stupid to realize the greatness of.

[John NYC]

Maybe what this country does need at this time is a good dose
of strong regionalism to thumb its nose once again at the big city fashionistas.

Not sure exactly what institutions you are targeting here in NYC with this rhetoric.

At all times the MOMA displays a rotating part of their permanent collection in the most prominent room dedicated to photography, and it is a collection which dates back to the beginning of photography.

Also, I don't see galleries or museums here devaluing older forms of art in favor of exclusively contemporary. Several galleries are currently having shows of photographers who worked only traditionally.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't worry, Corran ... I've had my fifteen seconds of fame more than once and you
might be a little surprised at who purchased my work. Big deal. Been there, done that. Like I said, if I wanted to play games, I know how. I just don't want to. Money is not my measure of success. Landing the image in front of me and communicating it in the
print is, rather than inventing something fictional second-hand. Read the daybooks of Weston and you'll find an analogous attitude. But I don't regard this as an "older" or "traditional" style of photography at all (speaking of snobby stereotypes). Maybe its
taking the puzzle head-on instead of faking it.

[paulr]

What's impersonal about record prices? It a remarkable show-window on both demographics and the whole parasitic groupie mentality surrounding contemporary art.

Then doesn't it also show the parasitic groupie mentality surrounding old art? The list includes work by Steichen, Weston (2 pieces), Stieglitz (2 pieces), Atget, and Ansel Adams.

[paulr]

Not sure exactly what institutions you are targeting here in NYC with this rhetoric.

At all times the MOMA displays a rotating part of their permanent collection in the most prominent room dedicated to photography, and it is a collection which dates back to the beginning of photography.

Also, I don't see galleries or museums here devaluing older forms of art in favor of exclusively contemporary. Several galleries are currently having shows of photographers who worked only traditionally.

Well, exactly. There are museums, dealers, and collectors of every persuation here. There are galleries that only show 19th century photography, and one gallery that I know of that only shows platinum prints.

Mr. Wiley seems to have invented a city for the purpose of hating.

I actually think there's too much emphasis on old, dead masters in the blue chip galleries. I stopped going to the AIPAD show because it was mostly stuff I could see in Art History books or at the Met. I'm more interested in people who are alive, waiting to be discovered. I want to see what I don't already know.

[John NYC]

I actually think there's too much emphasis on old, dead masters in the blue chip galleries. I stopped going to the AIPAD show because it was mostly stuff I could see in Art History books or at the Met. I'm more interested in people who are alive, waiting to be discovered. I want to see what I don't already know.

This year AIPAD was not overrun with old masters. There was a mix of just about everything you can think of.

[paulr]

This year AIPAD was not overrun with old masters. There was a mix of just about everything you can think of.

Yeah, I should probably go check it out again. It's been many years.