Wow, I really need to start selling prints.
-
I love photography just as much as anybody-more so than most normal people, probably, but this does seem a bit excessive:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/11/most-expensive-photo-world/44772/
I don’t know-maybe I’m just not seeing it, but it doesn’t look like a particularly exceptional photo to me. The lighting looks pretty…meah. Can somebody explain why a person (I assume it was a person and not some insane rich alien or a robot driven mad by Captain Kirk-style logic) would spend $4.3 M on this?
I was looking at that myself and thinking it that it was a very boring picture.
His prints are usually huuuuuge, so my guess is it’d have to be that size to appreciate.
MumblemublecompositionMumblemublelayersMumblemublecolorpaletteMumblemubleaestheticvisionMumblemubledumbasserryMumblemuble
Well I haven’t seen the full picture at full size, maybe it is huge and worth it. I will admit you can lose a lot by only seeing a picture of something on a computer screen
The emperor has no clothes.
It’s huuuuge. Over 10′ wide, and presumable very detailed.
For art from a living artist that breaks $100,000, this is the easiest to understand I’ve seen.
What is it a picture of? What is the subject? I don’t get it (which is not unusual). But most importantly, how can I get someone to pay me to take poorly composed pictures without a subject or anything of interest?
Old, but relevant.
It’s funny because it’s true.
I understand, it’s the art market and Gursky is one hell of a photographer
(examples: http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/gursky/). In this particular print, however, I don’t see it. I mean I see the compositional elements at work but if anyone other than Gursky shot it, then every criticism about it’s overall lack of subject would never be questioned.
Sorry, but someone paid four million dollars for a photograph, however well composed and printed of nothing. It’s their money, they can do with it whatever they please, but I am not going to stand here and pretend I see the emperors underwear.
Yeah…I can understand the sheer size of the item + buying the photographer’s name (like buying a name brand of something that’s essentially the same as something else, you’re just paying for the Levi/Nike/Gucci/Armani name on it) but IMHO that’s one ugly picture.
I don’t know, I kind of like it. I mean not to the tune of 4.3 million, necessarily, but I don’t think it’s a terrible photo by any means.
I’d rather spend a couple thousand on a giant backlit Peter Lik panoramic.
I’d rather spend a couple thousand on a giant backlit Peter Lik panoramic.
So good, it had to be said twice. Agreed, though, Peter Lik is great.
- The topic ‘Wow, I really need to start selling prints.’ is closed to new replies.
.
.