Sold a photo for $4 how good is that?

[Woody]

Pretty bloody ordinary if you ask me.

What price do you expect from your photos?

Andreas Gursky's Rhine River Photo Fetches $US4.3 Million

It's like kids finger paintings that fetch hundreds of dollars. Beauty is in the mind of the beholder.

Cheers,

John W

[Vincent_G]

chit chat on that photograph here ... Damn! I guess I must be undercharging....

cheers

[Woody]

Originally Posted by Vincent_G

chit chat on that photograph here ... Damn! I guess I must be undercharging....

cheers

Whoops, must read the threads more often..


Cheers,

John W

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by Woody

Pretty bloody ordinary if you ask me.

What price do you expect from your photos?

Andreas Gursky's Rhine River Photo Fetches $US4.3 Million

It's like kids finger paintings that fetch hundreds of dollars. Beauty is in the mind of the beholder.

Cheers,

John W

I'm confused you sold a photo for $4 and your talking about a photo sold for $4 million...

[Bruce A]

Originally Posted by ChrisAdval

I'm confused you sold a photo for $4 and your talking about a photo sold for $4 million...

Well it's a start

[TNH]

Originally Posted by Woody

Andreas Gursky's Rhine River Photo Fetches $US4.3 Million

It's like kids finger paintings that fetch hundreds of dollars. Beauty is in the mind of the beholder.

Cheers,

John W

It looks pretty ordinary to me. And a little boring. It's kind of cool, but who would buy it for that price??
If I took that exact same picture, it probably wouldn't sell at all, because I'm not a famous person.

[Krusty79]

Originally Posted by TNH

If I took that exact same picture, it probably wouldn't sell at all, because I'm not a famous person.

Yes, that's something that really bugs me. Shouldn't this be valuable because it is good art that stands on its own, not because this artist has sold other expensive works?

"In some cases it's a bit of a herd mentality," said Australian photography critic Robert McFarlane about why the price tag on Gursky photographs had increased.

"Gursky's attraction is probably in scale and detail and the fact that the market looks for successes to what sold before," McFarlane said, citing the 99 Cent II Diptychon image.

"And if they know that Gurksy sold for [$US3.35 million], they have a fair idea that a new or slightly different work may challenge that price."

Here's McFarlane trying to offer an explanation:

"And while some people may question why anyone would pay millions for such a stark, seemingly plain image, McFarlane said Gursky's work was respected for its "reverse exploration of the poetic" and its take on today's super-consumerist society."

How much crack do you have to smoke to come up with an explanation like that? Can someone just tell me in plain English?

[SwissJon]

Originally Posted by Krusty79

Yes, that's something that really bugs me. Shouldn't this be valuable because it is good art that stands on its own, not because this artist has sold other expensive works?

"In some cases it's a bit of a herd mentality," said Australian photography critic Robert McFarlane about why the price tag on Gursky photographs had increased.

"Gursky's attraction is probably in scale and detail and the fact that the market looks for successes to what sold before," McFarlane said, citing the 99 Cent II Diptychon image.

"And if they know that Gurksy sold for [$US3.35 million], they have a fair idea that a new or slightly different work may challenge that price."

Here's McFarlane trying to offer an explanation:

"And while some people may question why anyone would pay millions for such a stark, seemingly plain image, McFarlane said Gursky's work was respected for its "reverse exploration of the poetic" and its take on today's super-consumerist society."

How much crack do you have to smoke to come up with an explanation like that? Can someone just tell me in plain English?

Now, if Gurskys work is respected for that, I think my "Blue" must be worth at least $8.6million.. Come on.. Someone buy it off me.

[Biomech]

How much crack do you have to smoke to come up with an explanation like that?

They are all the same:



£220,000

From the brochure:

"blah blah blah.... as with previous works, Young once again endeavors to address issues surrounding social inequality. Drawing on inspiration from Perato's Law, Class #279 examines social distribution in terms of both class and social agenda and the clear imbalance between the many and the few... blah blah blah"

... apparently the textured background is supposed to represent a view of the Earth and the line the divide found in everything.

[kcoppock]

And these are the exact reasons I hated Art History. They would have some complete BS explanation like that for EVERYTHING seen in an art piece, and, while some of them might be valid, the majority of them were purely conjecture. :/

Call me unsophisticated, but I think it's ridiculous.