most expensive photo in the world vol. so full of life

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by JordanXI45

Originally Posted by Boys Noize


you have no idea what you're talking about
Click to expand...
& you do?
Click to expand...
As someone who has studied Gursky's work, his work is definitely not something that "any donkey with a dslr, tripod, and photoshop" can do. I'm not even the biggest fan of Gursky's but it's ridiculous that so many people can pass judgement on his work WITHOUT having seen the actual thing. You guys are somehow able to decide that his work is or isn't that great by looking at an image that is 1/100th the size of the actual work. To say that Gursky doesn't dedicate time and effort into his work and that he doesn't understand lighting techniques or framing is just complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he's a fine photographer, and knows all the basics and even master all the advanced techniques...
...the only problem is NONE of it is depicted in this photo. I understand that we're judging the image based on a jpeg, but god damn, what can the actual photo depict that could possible make it worth 4.3 mill?

The symmetry? The colors? the framing? ... all of which can be corrected in photoshop, mind you.

If you know something we don't, please enlighten us. I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong but until then, this photo is a disgrace to anyone who works hard and tries to push out the very best, creative photos to earn a middle class living as photographer.
 
Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by frostythepoptart

i actually love philosophy and took a course on the meaning of art. and not that my opinion is the end all statement but literally anything can be art which is stupid.

i can take a %!%% on the floor and photograph it.

is it art because i intentionally created it to be art or simply because aesthetics say so.

you got people paying millions for a childrens splashing of paint on a surface +#+*+.

and in case you couldn't tell i simply made up random nonsense, if you want i could go more in depth with a post that completely refutes my previously descriptions
Click to expand...
It is not simply aesthetics. Aesthetics is design, not art.
In order for something to be art, there has to be a concept behind it otherwise it is simply a craft. Taking a photograph is not art. Taking a photograph is recording a moment using a camera. It's when you take a photograph with a purpose and are able to articulate that purpose that it is art. Taking a photograph is no different than sewing a thread or putting a brush to a surface. A snapshot is not a work of art nor is a patch on a pair of jeans. Someone painting their house isn't art. A Gursky image of symmetry and architecture is art. A Michael Wolf image of urban crowding is art. An Alexander McQueen couture dress is art. A Rothko is art.

There are thousands of technically proficient painters in China that make a living off of counterfeiting masterpieces. Is what they are doing art? I'd argue against it since all they are doing is reproducing something that already was. Without a concept, everything else is just craft.
Click to expand...

that is your opinion and where the conflict lies.

there are splatter paintings considered art and thats regardless of whether it was the first try or 10,000 copies were thrown out because they weren't what the artist envisioned .

a fake mona lisa would give yout he exact same feeling a real one could and you wouldn't know the difference until you were told. you may not thing it is right or just after finding out but who cares.

art is difficult to define and I'm fine with that. Some see this picture as art I see it as absolutely nothing. and who cares about intention if I make the best mistake in the world, at the end of the day it is still the best.
 
Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by JordanXI45

& you do?
Click to expand...
As someone who has studied Gursky's work, his work is definitely not something that "any donkey with a dslr, tripod, and photoshop" can do. I'm not even the biggest fan of Gursky's but it's ridiculous that so many people can pass judgement on his work WITHOUT having seen the actual thing. You guys are somehow able to decide that his work is or isn't that great by looking at an image that is 1/100th the size of the actual work. To say that Gursky doesn't dedicate time and effort into his work and that he doesn't understand lighting techniques or framing is just complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he's a fine photographer, and knows all the basics and even master all the advanced techniques...
...the only problem is NONE of it is depicted in this photo. I understand that we're judging the image based on a jpeg, but god damn, what can the actual photo depict that could possible make it worth 4.3 mill?

The symmetry? The colors? the framing? ... all of which can be corrected in photoshop, mind you.

If you know something we don't, please enlighten us. I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong but until then, this photo is a disgrace to anyone who works hard and tries to push out the very best, creative photos to earn a middle class living as photographer.
Click to expand...
I can explain why this photograph went for so much. One, Andreas Gursky is a brand. He is not unlike Damien Hirst or Jasper Johns. Because his name is associated with it, it's price is automatically going to be high. Why is this though? Is it just the celebrity? Where did that celebrity come from? He has been consistently creating great work for the past two decades. He's credited with starting his own style of photography. Two, the contemporary art market is insane. It's not necessarily a good or a bad thing, just how things are at the moment. There are few things safer to invest in than art so that's where a lot of wealthy folks are putting their money now. Supply of these master class works are much lower than the demand hence the inflated prices.
That explains WHY this is worth so much but how much the work is valued doesn't make it a good/bad work. That is judged by whether or not it's technically and conceptually strong. If you guys are seriously incredulous as to why people think his photos are good, go to a museum that houses his work and  check it out in person. 
 

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

What a slap in the face for photographers who dedicates days, months and YEARS of their time and have to wait for the precise moment something happens to capture it on film.

People who dedicate time and effort into studying lighting techniques and framing and put talent and skill into their photographs, only to be upstaged by a photo that, LITERALLY, any donkey with a dslr, a tripod, and photoshop can accomplish.


no respect for this guy, at all.
Click to expand...



Why you lose respect for him and not the person who bought it? That's petty 
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by frostythepoptart

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by frostythepoptart

i actually love philosophy and took a course on the meaning of art. and not that my opinion is the end all statement but literally anything can be art which is stupid.

i can take a %!%% on the floor and photograph it.

is it art because i intentionally created it to be art or simply because aesthetics say so.

you got people paying millions for a childrens splashing of paint on a surface +#+*+.

and in case you couldn't tell i simply made up random nonsense, if you want i could go more in depth with a post that completely refutes my previously descriptions
Click to expand...
It is not simply aesthetics. Aesthetics is design, not art.
In order for something to be art, there has to be a concept behind it otherwise it is simply a craft. Taking a photograph is not art. Taking a photograph is recording a moment using a camera. It's when you take a photograph with a purpose and are able to articulate that purpose that it is art. Taking a photograph is no different than sewing a thread or putting a brush to a surface. A snapshot is not a work of art nor is a patch on a pair of jeans. Someone painting their house isn't art. A Gursky image of symmetry and architecture is art. A Michael Wolf image of urban crowding is art. An Alexander McQueen couture dress is art. A Rothko is art.

There are thousands of technically proficient painters in China that make a living off of counterfeiting masterpieces. Is what they are doing art? I'd argue against it since all they are doing is reproducing something that already was. Without a concept, everything else is just craft.
Click to expand...

that is your opinion and where the conflict lies.

there are splatter paintings considered art and thats regardless of whether it was the first try or 10,000 copies were thrown out because they weren't what the artist envisioned .

a fake mona lisa would give yout he exact same feeling a real one could and you wouldn't know the difference until you were told. you may not thing it is right or just after finding out but who cares.

art is difficult to define and I'm fine with that. Some see this picture as art I see it as absolutely nothing. and who cares about intention if I make the best mistake in the world, at the end of the day it is still the best.
Click to expand...
No, actually, intention has everything to do with art. If that weren't true then the works of Marcel Duchamp would be absolutely nonsensical and pointless. The works of Pollock, who I guess you are dissing as "splatter paintings", would be nonsensical and pointless.
Damien Hirst hardly touches his own work nowadays. He has hundreds of assistants doing the actual creation of the work. Is he not the artist behind them because he was the one that conceptualized it first? Ai Weiwei's Sunflower Seeds installation at the Tate Modern. Hundreds of millions of individually hand-painted porcelain sunflower seeds created by a factory of thousands. Is Ai Weiwei not the artist behind it?

There is clearly a fine line between artist and craftsman.
 
@ the argument"cant really call it a debate" on the last page
one- half of art is ******ed, people can take something,make it larger and all of the sudden its "art"
the big "sorry" pieces in Philly for example

two- people just get baked, twist some metal around, weld some stuff to it, bang million dollars
 
I dont know much about art aside from one semester of art history but to me THIS is artwork to me.
23l135v.jpg


i got this painting hanging in my living room painted by some guy in China.
 
Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by K2theAblaM

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

As someone who has studied Gursky's work, his work is definitely not something that "any donkey with a dslr, tripod, and photoshop" can do. I'm not even the biggest fan of Gursky's but it's ridiculous that so many people can pass judgement on his work WITHOUT having seen the actual thing. You guys are somehow able to decide that his work is or isn't that great by looking at an image that is 1/100th the size of the actual work. To say that Gursky doesn't dedicate time and effort into his work and that he doesn't understand lighting techniques or framing is just complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he's a fine photographer, and knows all the basics and even master all the advanced techniques...
...the only problem is NONE of it is depicted in this photo. I understand that we're judging the image based on a jpeg, but god damn, what can the actual photo depict that could possible make it worth 4.3 mill?

The symmetry? The colors? the framing? ... all of which can be corrected in photoshop, mind you.

If you know something we don't, please enlighten us. I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong but until then, this photo is a disgrace to anyone who works hard and tries to push out the very best, creative photos to earn a middle class living as photographer.
Click to expand...
I can explain why this photograph went for so much. One, Andreas Gursky is a brand. He is not unlike Damien Hirst or Jasper Johns. Because his name is associated with it, it's price is automatically going to be high. Why is this though? Is it just the celebrity? Where did that celebrity come from? He has been consistently creating great work for the past two decades. He's credited with starting his own style of photography. Two, the contemporary art market is insane. It's not necessarily a good or a bad thing, just how things are at the moment. There are few things safer to invest in than art so that's where a lot of wealthy folks are putting their money now. Supply of these master class works are much lower than the demand hence the inflated prices.
That explains WHY this is worth so much but how much the work is valued doesn't make it a good/bad work. That is judged by whether or not it's technically and conceptually strong. If you guys are seriously incredulous as to why people think his photos are good, go to a museum that houses his work and  check it out in person. 
Click to expand...
I understand this, thanks for pointing this out. Branding is huge and a chance to own a limited piece of art from a known photographer explains the price tag. 
I may be wrong on the valuation of the art, but artistically speaking (subjecting I know) I still don't feel like this was all too difficult to create. Like I already said, anyone with a DSLR, tripod and photoshop can create the exact same thing or comparable in under an hour. 

So my question is...why did this piece command 4.3 million if something similar can be legally reproduced and sold for a miniscule fraction of the the price. 

Is his reputation and brand worth THAT much!?

ScottHallWithAPick wrote:

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why you lose respect for him and not the person who bought it? That's petty 


Losing respect is a lot different than never having it in the first place. 
 
LOL they call this a "work of art"? What a disgrace to REAL artists. I'd take a piece of this and use it as my toilet paper.
 
11ft by 7ft?
eek.gif
eek.gif
eek.gif
eek.gif


Edit: Had to check the wiki of this dude as I am woefully lacking knowledge of artists and art.

[edit]Exhibitions

Gursky first exhibited his work in Germany in 1985 and has subsequently exhibited throughout Europe. His first solo gallery show was held at Galerie Johnen & Schöttle, Cologne, in 1988. Gursky's first one-person museum exhibition in the United States opened at the Milwaukee Art Museum in 1998, and his work was the subject of a retrospective organized by The Museum of Modern Art, New York, in 2001, touring to Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, Madrid, Centre Pompidou, Paris, and Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago in 2001-2002. Further museum exhibitions include "Werke-Works 80-08", Kunstmuseen Krefeld (2008, touring to Moderna Museet, Stockholm and Vancouver Art Gallery in 2009); Kunstmuseum Basel, Switzerland (2007); Haus der Kunst, Munich (2007, touring to Istanbul Museum of Modern Art, Sharjah Art Museum, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, and Ekaterina Foundation, Moscow in 2007-2008).[8] His work has been seen in international exhibitions, including the Internationale Foto-Triennale in Esslingen (1989 and 1995), the Venice Biennale (1990 and 2004), and the Biennale of Sydney (1996 and 2000).[9]
Gursky is represented by the Gagosian Gallery in the U.S. and by Sprüth Magers Berlin London in Europe. Before moving to Gagosian, he has been showing with Matthew Marks Gallery since 1997.



That's a lot of people who know far more art than anyone in this thread, and that's not a guess but a fact, who have deemed his work worthy of an exhibition. That means something.
 
Originally Posted by hongcouver604

LOL they call this a "work of art"? What a disgrace to REAL artists. I'd take a piece of this and use it as my toilet paper.
Click to expand...
Who are these "real artists" you speak of? Care to share?
 
One more thing... collecting art is very much about branding and the story behind the artist and work. You guys mention that any random person with a camera could recreate those images for next to nothing might be right but it wouldn't be the same. Your photo might look similar but it's not a Gursky. It won't be associated with the man that started that style of photography. When you buy a Gursky, first you're making an investment, secondly you're buying into the history. You're able to say you own a piece of work attributed to one of the originators of the Dusseldorf school of photography. It's very much a matter of prestige. For better or worse, the world of art collecting is basically high stakes gambling played by an exclusive circle of the rich.

You might have an image that LOOKS like a Gursky but at the end of the day, your photo was influenced by his work.

I also want to stress that an artist isn't judged based off of one work but a body of work. Gursky has been photographing in this style for decades. He took a risk and stuck with his convictions. He believed that this style of photography was important and that people would be drawn to it. Like other artists, he could have just followed a style of photography that was already present and made his living that way. He chose to carve his own lane and that's why he will go down in history books.

And again, all of that is just WHY it's valued at that figure. Value of a work doesn't make it good or bad.
 
Originally Posted by Boys Noize

One more thing... collecting art is very much about branding and the story behind the artist and work. You guys mention that any random person with a camera could recreate those images for next to nothing might be right but it wouldn't be the same. Your photo might look similar but it's not a Gursky. It won't be associated with the man that started that style of photography. When you buy a Gursky, first you're making an investment, secondly you're buying into the history. You're able to say you own a piece of work attributed to one of the originators of the Dusseldorf school of photography. It's very much a matter of prestige. For better or worse, the world of art collecting is basically high stakes gambling played by an exclusive circle of the rich.

You might have an image that LOOKS like a Gursky but at the end of the day, your photo was influenced by his work.

I also want to stress that an artist isn't judged based off of one work but a body of work. Gursky has been photographing in this style for decades. He took a risk and stuck with his convictions. He believed that this style of photography was important and that people would be drawn to it. Like other artists, he could have just followed a style of photography that was already present and made his living that way. He chose to carve his own lane and that's why he will go down in history books.

And again, all of that is just WHY it's valued at that figure. Value of a work doesn't make it good or bad.
Click to expand...

Good post right here. Everyone should definitely read it.
no sarcasm.
 
Time to capitalize on the hype...

I'm offering of the greatest MS Paint picture of all time for a steal of a deal at $2,000,000. I'm offering it up to my NT brethren first before going to the public. You can paypal that to me (please use gift though, those fees would be killer). Once the money is in my account, I'll email you the original file. If you're interested in this, I also have some oceanfront property in Kansas for sale and a bridge in New York that I can let go for half price. LMK.

i22g6e.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom