• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Andreas Gursky: Rhein II

Latest Gallery

Somewhere...

D
Somewhere...

  • 5
  • 2
  • 112
Iriana

H
Iriana

  • 8
  • 1
  • 179

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,753
Messages
2,845,136
Members
101,505
Latest member
PeterFFM
Recent bookmarks
1
Why?: because there are people who are willing to pay crap tons of money on meta-stuff, not just how good the thing per se is.
Why not?: cuz there's crap tons of minimal landscape photos, just on Flickr alone, that's better than this mediocre piece.
 
Great sky(?) I have those problems too.

I guess it's a case of the one percent who have the money to spend on the one percent of artists who command this amount having the taste to determine the market.

The AGNSW had the enormous dime store print--a previous large money spinner record I believe-- on show a while ago, it was pretty boring up close. You would need a very large house to hang it, but I suppose the buyers own office blocks or galleries.
 
Because it's big and a CEO can hang it behind his Desk or the Lobby. Gursky's fame has in my opionion nothing to do with how good his photographs are (mostly boring) and everything to do with how big they are furthemore he is part of the Becher clicque which mostly consists of overated photographers with good connections to the art market.

Dominik
 
I don't want to open a can of worms again, but the picture is not a photograph. It is a composite made of a photograph. Gursky himself does not claim his pictures being photographs. Gursky is not making pictures, nice to look at, but ideas and concepts you can look at. Some may consider them nice to look at or at least interesting.These ideas and concepts are considered being art. You will have to know and appreciate this to appreciate his pictures. As far as I know, he isn't even making all of the pictures entirely himself.
It's not Gursky making the money but the owner of the picture/gallery who is making the money (though it may not have been cheap in the first place I suppose. He addressing a certain audience by making his pictures large).

Ulrich
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ulrich Drolshagen said:
I don't want to open a can of worms again, but the picture is not a photograph. It is a composite made of a photograph. Gursky himself does not claim his pictures being photographs. Gursky is not making pictures, nice to look at, but ideas and concepts you can look at. ...
Ulrich
Click to expand...

I don't want to open a can of worms, either, but what you just described is something *I* would still consider a photograph (or part of what constitutes the modern photographic process), and, in light of other photographs (or *works of art* *ideas and concepts* etc., if you prefer) that are out there, this particular one is still quite boring.

Also, I don't think anyone is particularly accusatory of Gursky per se. After all, he's not the one paying or even suggesting how much his photographs should be traded at.

The only good point I've seen so far is regarding the size of his prints. Maybe we should all start printing huge :D
 
It's another example of "the emperors new clothes" school of photography" :confused:
 
Art without commerce is a hobby. Any stronger proof needed?
 
Ach, I liked matters better when his 99 ct store picture was the record holder. That had an appreciable irony whereas a very big picture of a very teutonic river for a very big price hasn't.
 
benjiboy said:
On the contrary, commerce without art is a hobby in this case.
Click to expand...

You so don't get it, do you? Just more of the usual, endless, uncomprehending sour grapes whenever anything unconventional rolls by here.
 
CGW said:
You so don't get it, do you? Just more of the usual, endless, uncomprehending sour grapes whenever anything unconventional rolls by here.
Click to expand...


Some get it, some don't. The ones who do are obviously willing to pay millions for it and the ones who don't, wouldn't drop a dime. As always, to each his own. Human nature. What gets tiring is the same old arguments that don't have a leg to stand on. Art is purely subjective and someone's crap may be someone else's gold. I am sometimes amazed at how much money some prints sell for (inkjet and non), just like I am sometimes amazed that someone would by one of my prints that I think is nothing special. I think we can all quit the judging and go make some pictures.
 
My comments are long and unbelievably fascinating (and self-serving). Check em out at my blog, linked in my signature.
 
Was the photo sold by Gursky or by a private collector if it is the later gursky won't see a dime from the sale, the same thing with Sherman's selfportrait. Gursky's photo is not my taste but tastes differ furthermore the art market has nothing to do with art and everything to do with the market. Art is sold like stock and just like the stockmarket it mostly produces bubbles created by some selfserving individuals. Never forget who Damien Hearst's best costumer is the answer is simple Damien Hearst. He buys most of his works and creates the illusion of being one of the most expensive Artists in the world, while in reality he buys the stuff himself basically he's a fraud. I doubt that Gursky buys his own work I rather believe that the market creates artist no matter what the artists does for the simple reason to have something to sell.

Dominik
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom