Take a minute and imagine the world's most expensive photo. 4.3 million dollars, of cold, hard cash. What would it be? The most amazing sunrise? Crystal clear waters on a pristine white sand beach? Ancient architecture with convergent lines? Click the link to be surprised.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertain...rld/44772/
Quote:It's called "Rhein II" and was photographed by Andreas Gursky, and it sold on Tuesday night for $4.3 million at Christie's. That easily broke the previous record set by Cindy Sherman's "Untitled #96" which sold at a $3.89 million price point in May.
Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the photo...
I think that its quite nice, but they could have bought my entire catalog for half that price...
This just blew my mind but according to wikipedia, this most expensive photo, sold for 4.3 million was actually photoshopped!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II
And not just tweaks such as colour balance or sharpening...
Quote: Extraneous details such as dog-walkers and a factory building were removed by the artist via digital editing. Justifying this manipulation of the image, Gursky said "Paradoxically, this view of the Rhine cannot be obtained in situ, a fictitious construction was required to provide an accurate image of a modern river.
Not sure what your thoughts are when it comes to fine art part of me says, it's an artistic creation and people are happy to pay for splotches of paint randomly thrown across a blank canvas, so why not a digitally manipulated photo? The other part of me says - couldn't he have taken the time to set up the shot properly to eliminate dog walkers? It's not like the river was going anywhere and judging by the overcast day/light - it seems like he would have had plenty of time to set up and capture the shot properly.
Somebody called ROCKY, posted this :- "I have better photos on undeveloped film. Stupid , really."
I suppose he is, if they are undeveloped.
Overlooking 'I can spend my money how I like' and' I have a unique talking point, for when friends are round',
for someone who has more money than they will ever spend, I suppose they have to try.
And if someone has it to spend, there will always be some to take it.
But if you look at it as a bit of the earth, undeveloped and untouched by human hand, then you may find it very peaceful .
The Online Photographer has an interesting article on this photo, including a video still that shows the original scene.
I've seen this photo as a print in a book, and was impressed. I'm a big fan of large colour field art, so I don't doubt that seeing this in person – six feet high and twelve feet long – would be quite an experience.
I have mixed opinions about the use of extensive modifications in a photo. I don't mind when it's used but I prefer when it isn't – I don't usually do extensive modification myself but wouldn't want an untouched photo to escape into the wild.
(Aug 12, 2012, 19:14)matthew Wrote: [ -> ]I have mixed opinions about the use of extensive modifications in a photo. I don't mind when it's used but I prefer when it isn't – I don't usually do extensive modification myself but wouldn't want an untouched photo to escape into the wild.
I'm not saying that photos should be untouched - almost everyone post-processes these days, but if that photo had been submitted to most photo competitions for example, it would probably be rejected on the grounds that it had been significantly digitally manipulated...
I'd definitely like to see it in person too...
The question is, how do you get listed in Christies auctions. I bet one of my photos would sell for a million is I could get it in there among those heavy wallets.
Which photo , Don?
Almost any--it's a gamble.
What crap. I'd have deleted it.
(Aug 14, 2012, 09:22)Don Schaeffer Wrote: [ -> ]Almost any--it's a gamble.
We should not ignore the basic issue here: an issue of distribution of the arts and what is perceived as art. That perception is controlled by very few dealers and sellers. Anyone who has access to these special gate-keepers is seen as an artist. I offer this poem.
Overpopulation of Spirit
When we go to the museum
we think there are only
100 paintings in the world
and a painting is by nature
real and celebrated.
But paintings are
as numerous as raindrops.
They are a tide
crushing the resources
of the world.
They are born
from the creative wombs of billions
mostly never framed and rarely viewed
and when they become things
encased into wood or glass
they pour
like molecules of water
into the narrowing space
of dwindling buildings.
We can't have anymore paintings.
Our houses are full.
We are begged out.
We can find no one to
drag them away.
If Gursky pumped a bit more contrast into that sky in lightroom I bet he could have cracked $5mil...
Gursky's style is to include plenty of detail and showcase the photos using really large prints. So i think this photograph could only be apreciated at it's true value on print, as it was ment to. The 800 or so long edge resolution is more lile a thumbnail
Another thing, i am glad that so much money has been payed for a photography. It pushes the market's boundaries, creating value for photography as a whole.
Here's one of my favs, the 99 cent Diptychon
http://creartion.wordpress.com/2011/04/2...diptychon/