Andreas Gursky: Rhein II

[M. Lointain]

I, too, like Gursky's work, but by the general tone of the comments here and other threads about contemporary photography I hope nobody wonders why none of these photographers are willing to participate on Apug.

That just about sums it up Greg.

When I was younger I would have said anyone can do this Gursky image etc... As I have aged and become a little more enlightened about the world my opinions have changed.

You have to be in the game to play. You could be the greatest sandlot baseball player in history but since you are not in the Major Leagues it won't matter. Gursky is in the Majors because he spent his life doing the work that got him there. A lot of the comments in this thread are coming from the sandlot so to speak. I don't mean any offense by that I am simply conveying the truth. Take a step back and think about it.

Another factor for these comments lies in the simplicity of making a photograph. If we look at another art form, like music for example, this becomes apparent. Go onto YouTube and search for "cover". You will find endless horrendous ear grating covers of great songs written by great musicians. All of those people thought "I could do that too!" but they can't.

This is all not to say that I like this particular Gursky image because it doesn't really do anything for me. Some of his other images have become more interesting as I get older and I spend more time thinking about photographs.

To get back to Greg's post, imagine for a second if Gursky deigned to grace this forum with his presence. What would the comments be in that situation? What if you were sitting down with him for dinner or coffee? I guarantee that no one here would have the nut sack to say these things to his face because you would realize at that point how petty and insignificant your opinion really is.

Food for thought.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I like that one,,, nut sack,,, Dinesh you are a nut sack,,

 

[rphenning]

oh this is ridiculous - every time a photograph sells for a large amount of money people on these forums start acting like a bunch of jealous teenage girls (what's SHE got that I don't have??) - it's not ABOUT any particular aspect of merit - and NO - none of you COULD make as 'successful' a photograph. It's not ABOUT 'photographic merit' in any way. It's because gursky is the tool of some wealthy business people. Like britney spears... he is paid as a celebrity and a representative of 'high culture'. Well there are certainly merits beyond that... but the pop music analogy isn't far off... so you can make music like britney spears?? well that's not exactly the point, is it? It's not about meritocracy. It never was.

very well said. I appreciate your perspective and have changed my tune a bit as a result.

 

[olleorama]

Great comment Thomas! This is exactly how I react. Gursky is a good businessman and knows what the art market wants. But to me it is not art as it does not arouse any emotion.

But he didn't sell it for the record amount. He sold it for waaaayyy less.

I really like and appreciate Gurskys work. I've seen some prints at a show at Moderna Museet in sthlm some years ago, I was in awe. He truly is great. Taken out of context rhein II isn't that impressive but put in an exhibition it's fabulous.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To get back to Greg's post, imagine for a second if Gursky deigned to grace this forum with his presence. What would the comments be in that situation? What if you were sitting down with him for dinner or coffee? I guarantee that no one here would have the nut sack to say these things to his face because you would realize at that point how petty and insignificant your opinion really is.

If Gursky cared enough to ask, I would look him straight in the face and tell him. I would have no problem doing that, because it's not like he needs my approval. It's my duty to tell it as I see it when people ask my opinion, and also consider it disrespectful to lie. I sincerely hope he would have enough respect for other humans, and accept that his work isn't for everybody, no matter how many millions of dollars his pieces fetch. And then again, if he did not ask me, why in the world would I bother telling him? That would also be rude.

Since Gursky will never come to APUG anyway, it's a moot point. In the meantime, excuse me while I go focus on something that I am actually interested in.

 

[Dali]

But he didn't sell it for the record amount. He sold it for waaaayyy less.

I really like and appreciate Gurskys work. I've seen some prints at a show at Moderna Museet in sthlm some years ago, I was in awe. He truly is great. Taken out of context rhein II isn't that impressive but put in an exhibition it's fabulous.

Maybe but I suspect he is smart enough to know what the art market expects from him. Who wants to kill the golden goose?

 

[CGW]

I, too, like Gursky's work, but by the general tone of the comments here and other threads about contemporary photography I hope nobody wonders why none of these photographers are willing to participate on Apug.

Agreed. Tired of the fusty canon that rejects "contemporary" and "photography" used as a phrase. Just the same old herd of independent minds.

 

[removed account4]

i am not really sure why people are being argumentative about ...
it isn't as if it really matters ( other to ourselves ) if we like or dislike
photography, "modern photographic artwork" or anything else.

 

[olleorama]

Maybe but I suspect he is smart enough to know what the art market expects from him. Who wants to kill the golden goose?

I agree. But I think it's important to understand that it isn't the photographer who haved haussed himself up to this levels. It's the market (and agents, curators and what not). This guy isn't some new prodigy, he had his first retrospective ten years ago, he doesn't dance after the markets fife, he has been continueing to evolve his image language in a quite special but still constant way. He has a certain style that has evolved over years and years of hard work, I find it hard to beleive that the market has looked the same all that time.

 

[hoffy]

Great comment Thomas! This is exactly how I react. Gursky is a good businessman and knows what the art market wants. But to me it is not art as it does not arouse any emotion.

It’s interesting you say this, as this thread has now hit 7 pages.

It has dug up plenty of emotion. Some hate it, some like it, some are indifferent to it. I think that Gursky has achieved this objective.

The one thing I don’t understand from a lot of the comments is about this being ‘Commercial’. If this was commercial, would it not be reproduced as postcards, in books, as posters, limited edition reproductions? On some local Australian forums, I have seen mention and comparison to the likes of Ken Duncan (I.E., “how can you call the Gursky image as art – have a look at the likes of the Landscapes that Duncan does”). While Mr Duncan is certainly succesful, he milks all of his images for what they are worth. That is commercial.

And as for Gursky’s opinion on what a forum such as APUG thinks? Does he really care? Have you ever noticed that the likes of Gursky never appear on places like this. I wonder why. Have you also noticed that true artists don’t have websites? We had a local artist Darren Siwes (has pieces in the permanent collections of the national gallery) come and talk at my local photography club. When asked if we could view his images online, he kind of shrugged his shoulders. I suppose, when you get to a certain level, promotion is no longer necessary.

 

[M. Lointain]

.....Have you also noticed that true artists don’t have websites? We had a local artist Darren Siwes (has pieces in the permanent collections of the national gallery) come and talk at my local photography club. When asked if we could view his images online, he kind of shrugged his shoulders. I suppose, when you get to a certain level, promotion is no longer necessary.

Many artists have private websites. You will never know about them though unless you have the money to buy their work.

 

[removed account4]

The one thing I don’t understand from a lot of the comments is about this being ‘Commercial’. If this was commercial, would it not be reproduced as postcards, in books, as posters, limited edition reproductions?

Have you also noticed that true artists don’t have websites?

art that is in a gallery is as commercial as art that is on a billboard, there is no difference except for the "audience"

plenty of "true artists" have websites ... i could list some but then some might say " they aren't 'true artists' "

 

[tomalophicon]

What a great photo. It would surely blow me away looking at a print that large.

 

[zsas]

Like all art critique there is no right answer because one person’s junk is another person’s art, so with that said I will attempt to describe, for me, why I find a lot of depth in Gursky’s work, especially Rhine II. His pieces are existential and make me think about my interaction with nature/society. Rhine II, is abstract, minimal, surreal, existential, and many other al’s. For me, as one who studied filmmaking, I tend to seek out stories or meaning in photographs and other art (painting, film, graphic design, street art, and many more…) that might be there/or not. For me, this relationship of art and its reflexivity are profound and why I love art. Am I just finding depth/meaning in art that doesn’t exist? Maybe, but there is no harm in that either? No (so long as I am not blowing the household’s money on abstract pieces of art that we can’t afford, i.e. Rhine II). As one who likes photography and its artistic merits, I am proud to see this piece so praised and valued so high. I think what this shows is that some folks will pay a premium for depth (that might exist or not).

 

[Dali]

Ite missa est.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

I think, whether we think Mr. Gursky is a great photographer or not, is just a little irrelevant. What is relevant, is the man whatever his motive, has raised the
financial bar on photography that we may all enjoy, if we decide to see it this way.

If someone is encouraged, for whatever reason to drop a few million bucks on a picture from Gursky, that may mean I can ask for a bit more respect and financial
compensation for the work that I do.

 

[Steve Smith]

I think, whether we think Mr. Gursky is a great photographer or not, is just a little irrelevant.

That's true. There are two separate issues in question here. The first is the actual photograph and our opinions on its artistic value, etc. All of these opinions are just that and none of them are wrong as they are personal.

The other issue is the price paid. Is this a fair price for one person to hand over to another just for a photograph? It's not my money so I don't really care.

The only thing that bothers me is the perception the general public has of photographers and/or artists. Whilst some of us might think it's great that a photograph can sell for so much, the more general thinking is that these people must be living on another planet and it all gets put into the same category as piles of bricks, unmade beds and empty rooms with lights turning on and off as works of art.


Steve.

 

[zsas]

I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that discussing if Gursky is a great photographer or not is irrelevant. We have folks in this thread asking fellow Apug'ers why he/she likes or dislikes Gursky and his work, without this kind of discussion Apug will merely be a site of discussion of technical matters and the art is thereby suppressed or kept to basic "like" or "don't like".

Steve I understand what you mean but that perception of fine art not being abstract went out the window with Duchamp's Fountain (1917) and Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (1928-29).

I fall into the class of folks that call these abstract works of art that have this reflexivity to be strokes of genius. But I highly respect a contrary belief as it is just as true to one's taste and thereby correct.

 

[rawhead]

If someone is encouraged, for whatever reason to drop a few million bucks on a picture from Gursky, that may mean I can ask for a bit more respect and financial
compensation for the work that I do.

I think that's the kind of "trickle-down economics" thinking that's been pretty much proven not to work in the real world, as any one of the "Occupy XXX" protesters would be happy to tell you about.