November 10, 2011 at 10:51 am #2477Plamadude30kParticipant
I love photography just as much as anybody-more so than most normal people, probably, but this does seem a bit excessive:
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?November 10, 2011 at 12:45 pm #42599jpattenParticipant
I was looking at that myself and thinking it that it was a very boring picture.November 10, 2011 at 12:55 pm #42600
His prints are usually huuuuuge, so my guess is it’d have to be that size to appreciate.November 10, 2011 at 12:57 pm #42601ennuipoetParticipant
MumblemublecompositionMumblemublelayersMumblemublecolorpaletteMumblemubleaestheticvisionMumblemubledumbasserryMumblemubleNovember 10, 2011 at 1:00 pm #42602jpattenParticipant
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 screenNovember 10, 2011 at 1:00 pm #42603fluffybunnyParticipant
The emperor has no clothes.November 10, 2011 at 1:15 pm #42604
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.November 10, 2011 at 1:26 pm #42605zincprincessParticipant
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?November 10, 2011 at 1:46 pm #42606November 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm #42607November 10, 2011 at 4:33 pm #42608ennuipoetParticipant
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.November 10, 2011 at 9:52 pm #42609KestranaParticipant
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.November 10, 2011 at 10:27 pm #42610sleepingParticipant
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.November 10, 2011 at 10:54 pm #42611November 10, 2011 at 10:58 pm #42612
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.