Andreas Gursky's "99 Cent" diptych went for $2.48 million at auction on 16th Nov (irony intentional?)
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswir..._id=1003466018
(I'm also fairly sure it's a digital print)
Andreas Gursky's "99 Cent" diptych went for $2.48 million at auction on 16th Nov (irony intentional?)
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswir..._id=1003466018
(I'm also fairly sure it's a digital print)
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
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
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.
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
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..._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
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
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.
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
My apologies to Mr. Frank. He should be happy to know that I have no, none, nil abilities of seeing into the future.
Bookmarks