How Much Is YOUR Tricycle Worth?

[ennuipoet]

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/03/20/why-this-photograph-is-worth-578500/

I link this here not so much to rehash to the exorbitant price debate but to show you a classic example of an arts proponent condescending to those who do not drink their Kool Aid. The author makes it pretty clear his only reason for believing the photo is worth half a million dollars is because…well…he says it is.

My opinion? Well, the shot is (marginally) better than the Gursky but nowhere near the Sherman.

[staplermofo]

These photographs, in retrospect, are some of the clearest and most accomplished examples of the new movements to which they belong. Together with a handful of other works they represent turning points in the way art represents the world, and because those particular turning points happened once, they can never happen again.

That’s his point, I think.

Pricing art on its merits is like pricing a car on its merits.
A 2005 Kia Rio is faster, more comfortable and, to many people, better looking than a 1905 Rolls Royce V-8 with a Landaulet par Excellence body. The Kia is fundamentally a better car, it’s ridiculous to argue otherwise. Is history worth $750k?
What about a Bugatti Veyron? It doesn’t have history, but it’ll probably go up in value. It almost certainly will be creeping around Pebble Beach in 75 years. Can you add history to the price because you think it will eventually have it?

[ennuipoet]

Can you add history to the price because you think it will eventually have it?

Well, you can, but it doesn’t necessarily make it happen. One could argue that a Van Gogh in 1880 certainly would not have fetched the same price as it would in 1920 (to use to the 40 year time frame of this photograph) though his work challenged the accepted themes of the time and is subsequently recognized for it, and has increased in value because of that recognition.

Of course, one can look at a Van Gogh and immediately recognize who created the work, I don’t believe anyone can truly duplicate his work. The same cannot be said of this work. The argument here is Eggleston is breaking new ground in the art world, but that isn’t enough. One of the reasons a Van Gogh or a Picasso, or David holds up is the timelessness of the work. Generation after generation look on their art and are moved by it, changed in some fundamental way. I remember with vivid clarity seeing the Van Gogh’s in the National Gallery, I remember the light as they fell on the canvass, the texture of the brush strokes, the composition and the style, is part of this the name…yes, of course. Yet the name is not enough with the ingenuity of the art to make a masterpiece. I simply cannot look upon a washed out shot of a toy without context or composition and have the same emotional reaction as seeing the work of an accomplished master. I’ve seen Ansel Adams prints in galleries and FELT the composition, been moved by the vision. Hell, I’ve been far more emotionally charged by any number of works on Farktography than by this. Why aren’t U-Man’s or Orionid‘s work not worth half a million dollars? I’ve seen both of them challenge the accepted norms of photography on more than one occasion, straining the barriers of what is commonly accepted and achieving a visceral reaction to their work?

Because the art world doesn’t give a damn about that, it exists only to self fellatio their narrow definition of what has value.

This Eggelston print is not bad, or terrible or even over valued…people will pay what they are willing to pay for art. What it isn’t is objectively better than hundreds thousands of other photographs and only draws the kind of money it has because a few self selected experts decided it would be the name d’jour.

But what do I know, someday another jaded amateur may be snarking over the sale price of a Ullenius or a Buckwalter! 😛

[Curious]

that is the biggest pile of steaming horse shit it has been my displease to read in a long time. i like to think modern artists could make a good living with their work and some can get popular and make a bunch of money. but when you have a really unexceptional snapshot of a tricycle being lauded as breakthrough art because it is in color ???????? i probably missed the whole point of the article but not being a pretentious asshole i have trouble reading between the lines here and seeing the “great art”.

oh and that green thing is ugly as sin boring. whatever the “artist” did digitally didn’t work. oh wait it was supposed to make it uniform. so sad it ended up boring.

[staplermofo]

Here, it’s less pretentious.

[Curious]

odd how folks who can’t defend their positions be it art, religion or politics all fall back on demeaning their critics in some fashion. and staplermofo your guy calls the art world on it.

[ennuipoet]

Here, it’s less pretentious.

Not only is that hilarious, but underneath the veneer of stupidity, actually brilliant!

[Yoyo]

I understand how this photo of the tricycle was groundbreaking in making color photography accepted in the realm of fine art photography, but this critic in the article states that the first is not necessarily the best, and I would say there are much better examples of color fine art photos out there or more recent antiquity(?). As a documentary photo of suburbia, I can concede that this is a good work, and certainly shows the sort of deolation described by the critic (not that I agree that suburbia is desolate). I would also say that there are better works of art showing the desolation of suburbia as well as most other areas of human residence, both earlier and later. As is stated, art is ever changing, I would say that it is precisely the originality of photo in terms of technique (color) and subject (suburbia) that make this photo valuable at all. If this photographer were not the one who broke this new ground in art photography, then the shot would be worthless.

Regarding the short film commentary about art by Mr. Youngman, I love it. Way more artistic than the trike photo, in terms of being ground breaking (cinamatography).

In conculsion, it is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money.

[ennuipoet]

I would also say that there are better works of art showing the desolation of suburbia as well as most other areas of human residence, both earlier and later. As is stated, art is ever changing, I would say that it is precisely the originality of photo in terms of technique (color) and subject (suburbia) that make this photo valuable at all. If this photographer were not the one who broke this new ground in art photography, then the shot would be worthless.
(Snip)

In conculsion, it is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money.

The rest of the lot that sold http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/william-eggleston-untitled-1970/5536829/lot/lot_details.aspx I find much more compelling. There is something about the Tricycle that I find just…boring!

You are very correct in your conclusion, though!

[Farktographer]

Here, it’s less pretentious.

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t hear him over the sound of how awesome his Bill Cosby sweater is.

[orionid]

Can you add history to the price because you think it will eventually have it?

Well, you can, but it doesn’t necessarily make it happen. One could argue that a Van Gogh in 1880 certainly would not have fetched the same price as it would in 1920 (to use to the 40 year time frame of this photograph) though his work challenged the accepted themes of the time and is subsequently recognized for it, and has increased in value because of that recognition.

Of course, one can look at a Van Gogh and immediately recognize who created the work, I don’t believe anyone can truly duplicate his work. The same cannot be said of this work. The argument here is Eggleston is breaking new ground in the art world, but that isn’t enough. One of the reasons a Van Gogh or a Picasso, or David holds up is the timelessness of the work. Generation after generation look on their art and are moved by it, changed in some fundamental way. I remember with vivid clarity seeing the Van Gogh’s in the National Gallery, I remember the light as they fell on the canvass, the texture of the brush strokes, the composition and the style, is part of this the name…yes, of course. Yet the name is not enough with the ingenuity of the art to make a masterpiece. I simply cannot look upon a washed out shot of a toy without context or composition and have the same emotional reaction as seeing the work of an accomplished master. I’ve seen Ansel Adams prints in galleries and FELT the composition, been moved by the vision. Hell, I’ve been far more emotionally charged by any number of works on Farktography than by this. Why aren’t U-Man’s or Orionid‘s work not worth half a million dollars? I’ve seen both of them challenge the accepted norms of photography on more than one occasion, straining the barriers of what is commonly accepted and achieving a visceral reaction to their work?

Because the art world doesn’t give a damn about that, it exists only to self fellatio their narrow definition of what has value.

This Eggelston print is not bad, or terrible or even over valued…people will pay what they are willing to pay for art. What it isn’t is objectively better than hundreds thousands of other photographs and only draws the kind of money it has because a few self selected experts decided it would be the name d’jour.

But what do I know, someday another jaded amateur may be snarking over the sale price of a Ullenius or a Buckwalter! 😛

It’s high time I buy you another beer.

/blushing.
//Thanks, seriously. Wait until you see what I didn’t pull off for this week, but will eventually.

[Author]

Posts