"Pond" photograph sets highest price...

[Curt]

Record Set

http://kevxml2a.verizon.net/_1_2JV7...PAN8O0&qcat=entertain&passqi=&top=1&ran=26504

 

[vet173]

Damn, I shouda bought it last week before it became expensive.

 

[Eric Rose]

I just cruised the Sothebys website. The photo section was interesting to say the least. The one thing I can take away from it is that there must be some other reason why these photos are getting such high prices. Many of the photos in our APUG galleries are every bit as good as those showcased at Sothebys.

Oh ya and the other thing I noticed was O'Keefe had a dynamite body LOL.

 

[isaacc7]

I just cruised the Sothebys website. The photo section was interesting to say the least. The one thing I can take away from it is that there must be some other reason why these photos are getting such high prices. Many of the photos in our APUG galleries are every bit as good as those showcased at Sothebys.

Well, I think that historical importance has a lot to do with it. Granted, there are many pictures on APUG that are similar in quality and subject matter to the ones in the catalog, but most of them were done 60, 70, 80 years or more ago. Laboring in an aesthetic that went out of vogue in the art world 60 years ago will do little to foster high resale values. Luckily for most of the members of APUG, they are not trying to capture the art world's attention, they are doing it for themselves...

Isaac

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I suspect someone just decided that something needed to be done about that damned "photograph of a photograph" holding the record. Now we can go back to ignoring it.

 

[pentaxuser]

I just cruised the Sothebys website. The photo section was interesting to say the least. The one thing I can take away from it is that there must be some other reason why these photos are getting such high prices. Many of the photos in our APUG galleries are every bit as good as those showcased at Sothebys.

Oh ya and the other thing I noticed was O'Keefe had a dynamite body LOL.

I don't think there is any reason that can be tied to anything loosely termed technical or aesthetic quality. If anyone ever visits the Isle of Man, try and get to Port Erin and climb to the Milner Tower on Bradda Head. This tower is a 19th century folly, erected by a Liverpool safe manufacturer. By the tower is a plaque which says that from that spot someone took a picture for a competition in 1934 (B&W of course) which won £300. Have a look around and marvel at what kind of landscape shot was possible which could have been worth £300 which was about 3 yrs salary for a skilled manual worker then or about £50,000 in today's money. It beats me and has beaten the Port Erin Tourist Information Office which says that it looked like a perfectly ordinary landscape photograph which anyone could have taken.

So there you are. It was worth £300. Ipso Facto it must be an outstanding photo, the likes of which may never be taken again.

Pentaxuser

 

[Troy]

I think it's all about historical context, who's famous, and the story behind the art — as well as the aesthetics of the picture itself. Duchamp's urinal is worth more than the one I peed in this morning because there's a great story and some historical context/significance to go along with it. We just can't get enough of the Stieglitz/O'Keefe story or the Weston/Wilson thing either. Weston, Stieglitz, Steichen... all fabulous characters as well as great artists. People pay for that kind of thing.

 

[Mark Layne]

Record Set

http://kevxml2a.verizon.net/_1_2JV7...PAN8O0&qcat=entertain&passqi=&top=1&ran=26504

Must benefit from being ugly

 

[rhphoto]

Must benefit from being ugly

:confused:


:rolleyes: