Skip to toolbar

Wow, I really need to start selling prints.

Forums Forums Farktography General Chat Farktography Pub and Grill Wow, I really need to start selling prints.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2477
    Plamadude30k
    Participant

    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?

    #42599
    jpatten
    Participant

    I was looking at that myself and thinking it that it was a very boring picture.

    #42600
    staplermofo
    Participant

    His prints are usually huuuuuge, so my guess is it’d have to be that size to appreciate.

    #42601
    ennuipoet
    Participant

    MumblemublecompositionMumblemublelayersMumblemublecolorpaletteMumblemubleaestheticvisionMumblemubledumbasserryMumblemuble

    #42602
    jpatten
    Participant

    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

    #42603
    fluffybunny
    Participant

    The emperor has no clothes.

    #42604
    staplermofo
    Participant

    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.

    #42605
    zincprincess
    Participant

    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?

    #42606
    staplermofo
    Participant
    #42607
    nobigdeal
    Participant

    Old, but relevant.

    It’s funny because it’s true.

    #42608
    ennuipoet
    Participant

    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.

    #42609
    Kestrana
    Participant

    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.

    #42610
    sleeping
    Participant

    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.

    #42611
    orionid
    Participant

    I’d rather spend a couple thousand on a giant backlit Peter Lik panoramic.

    #42612
    Plamadude30k
    Participant

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.