most expensive picture ever
 

http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/...s-gursky-5.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Gursky

"As of end 2011, Gursky holds a new record for highest price paid at
auction for a single photographic image. His print "Rhein II", sold
for USD $4,338,500 at Christie's, New York on 8 November 2011."

Generally speaking, I like his photo's. But this Rhein II photo looks
like one of his less inspired photo's.

http://butdoesitfloat.com/46623

Does anyone have any idea what makes that Rhein II picture so special
that it fetches such a record price?
Or is it simply because it's a picture by such a well-known
photographer that motivates people to pay that
much for a picture that looks rather dull?

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:50:33 -0800 (PST), sobriquet wrote:

> http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/...s-gursky-5.jpg
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Gursky
>
> "As of end 2011, Gursky holds a new record for highest price paid at
> auction for a single photographic image. His print "Rhein II", sold
> for USD $4,338,500 at Christie's, New York on 8 November 2011."
>
> Generally speaking, I like his photo's. But this Rhein II photo looks
> like one of his less inspired photo's.
>
> http://butdoesitfloat.com/46623
>
> Does anyone have any idea what makes that Rhein II picture so special
> that it fetches such a record price?
> Or is it simply because it's a picture by such a well-known
> photographer that motivates people to pay that
> much for a picture that looks rather dull?

More money than sense?

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

On Nov 10, 3:50*pm, sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/...s-gursky-5.jpg
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Gursky
>
> "As of end 2011, Gursky holds a new record for highest price paid at
> auction for a single photographic image. His print "Rhein II", sold
> for USD $4,338,500 at Christie's, New York on 8 November 2011."
>
> Generally speaking, I like his photo's. But this Rhein II photo looks
> like one of his less inspired photo's.
>
> http://butdoesitfloat.com/46623
>
> Does anyone have any idea what makes that Rhein II picture so special
> that it fetches such a record price?
> Or is it simply because it's a picture by such a well-known
> photographer that motivates people to pay that
> much for a picture that looks rather dull?

Be nice if the edges weren't noticeably blurred. I thought landscapes
were supposed to be sharp?

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

On 11/10/2011 02:50 PM, sobriquet wrote:
>
>
> http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/...s-gursky-5.jpg
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Gursky
>
> "As of end 2011, Gursky holds a new record for highest price paid at
> auction for a single photographic image. His print "Rhein II", sold
> for USD $4,338,500 at Christie's, New York on 8 November 2011."
>
> Generally speaking, I like his photo's. But this Rhein II photo looks
> like one of his less inspired photo's.
>
> http://butdoesitfloat.com/46623
>
> Does anyone have any idea what makes that Rhein II picture so special
> that it fetches such a record price?
> Or is it simply because it's a picture by such a well-known
> photographer that motivates people to pay that
> much for a picture that looks rather dull?


The guy has done a lot of excellent photography
but if I saw Rhein II in a photo show
I'd probably view it for less than one second before moving on.

Who ever bought it obviously has money to burn

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

In article <2011111022304475249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2011-11-10 20:19:41 -0800, philo <philo@none.inv> said:
>
> > On 11/10/2011 02:50 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/...s-gursky-5.jpg
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Gursky
> >>
> >> "As of end 2011, Gursky holds a new record for highest price paid at
> >> auction for a single photographic image. His print "Rhein II", sold
> >> for USD $4,338,500 at Christie's, New York on 8 November 2011."
> >>
> >> Generally speaking, I like his photo's. But this Rhein II photo looks
> >> like one of his less inspired photo's.
> >>
> >> http://butdoesitfloat.com/46623
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any idea what makes that Rhein II picture so special
> >> that it fetches such a record price?
> >> Or is it simply because it's a picture by such a well-known
> >> photographer that motivates people to pay that
> >> much for a picture that looks rather dull?
> >
> >
> > The guy has done a lot of excellent photography
> > but if I saw Rhein II in a photo show
> > I'd probably view it for less than one second before moving on.
> >
> > Who ever bought it obviously has money to burn
>
> I would just like to find out what sort of crop Tony might suggest to
> improve it.

Wheat, I think. But on the far side of the water. :P


--
Sandman[.net]

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

In article
<16ba4c52-92d4-4c69-865c-9e0bfe1d4b3c@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/...s-gursky-5.jpg
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Gursky
>
> "As of end 2011, Gursky holds a new record for highest price paid at
> auction for a single photographic image. His print "Rhein II", sold
> for USD $4,338,500 at Christie's, New York on 8 November 2011."
>
> Generally speaking, I like his photo's. But this Rhein II photo looks
> like one of his less inspired photo's.
>
> http://butdoesitfloat.com/46623
>
> Does anyone have any idea what makes that Rhein II picture so special
> that it fetches such a record price?
> Or is it simply because it's a picture by such a well-known
> photographer that motivates people to pay that
> much for a picture that looks rather dull?

Truly a substandard photograph. Boring composition, lousy exposure. I
would have assumed it was taken by a P&S camera. Anyone paying more
than $0.01 for this image has to be insane.


--
Sandman[.net]

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

In article <87zkg3jbys.fld@apaflo.com>,
floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> >Truly a substandard photograph. Boring composition, lousy exposure. I
> >would have assumed it was taken by a P&S camera. Anyone paying more
> >than $0.01 for this image has to be insane.
>
> A better analysis is that anyone who says what you have is 1) jealous,
> 2) foolish, and 3) incompetent.
>
> Executive summary: clueless.

He's not cluesless, he has a great portfolio of awesome pictures. This
just isn't one of them. Bewildering.


--
Sandman[.net]

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

"sobriquet" <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:16ba4c52-92d4-4c69-865c-9e0bfe1d4b3c@o13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> "As of end 2011, Gursky holds a new record for highest price paid at
> auction for a single photographic image. His print "Rhein II", sold
> for USD $4,338,500 at Christie's, New York on 8 November 2011."
> Generally speaking, I like his photo's. But this Rhein II photo looks
> like one of his less inspired photo's.
> http://butdoesitfloat.com/46623


Totally agree, most of the others on that page look better.



> Does anyone have any idea what makes that Rhein II picture so special
> that it fetches such a record price?

Nope.


> Or is it simply because it's a picture by such a well-known
> photographer that motivates people to pay that
> much for a picture that looks rather dull?

Surely you'd want to buy one of his better ones for that money.

Trevor.

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

In article <87vcqrj62b.fld@apaflo.com>,
floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

> Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> >In article <87zkg3jbys.fld@apaflo.com>,
> > floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >
> >> >Truly a substandard photograph. Boring composition, lousy exposure. I
> >> >would have assumed it was taken by a P&S camera. Anyone paying more
> >> >than $0.01 for this image has to be insane.
> >>
> >> A better analysis is that anyone who says what you have is 1) jealous,
> >> 2) foolish, and 3) incompetent.
> >>
> >> Executive summary: clueless.
> >
> >He's not cluesless, he has a great portfolio of awesome pictures. This
> >just isn't one of them. Bewildering.
>
> He isn't clueless, *you are*.

I know that that is what you attempted (and failed) to claim, but I
rather not play the same game as you trolls, it's just not fun for me
:)


--
Sandman[.net]

Re: most expensive picture ever
 

"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:mr-34587D.10291111112011@News.Individual.NET...
> In article <87zkg3jbys.fld@apaflo.com>,
> floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>> >Truly a substandard photograph. Boring composition, lousy exposure. I
>> >would have assumed it was taken by a P&S camera. Anyone paying more
>> >than $0.01 for this image has to be insane.
>>
>> A better analysis is that anyone who says what you have is 1) jealous,
>> 2) foolish, and 3) incompetent.
>>
>> Executive summary: clueless.
>
> He's not cluesless, he has a great portfolio of awesome pictures. This
> just isn't one of them. Bewildering.

I agree. He has some great work but this one bewilderes me also. My
brother-in-law has one of his photos in his office in Manhattan that cost $
70,000.00 and it puts this one to shame IMO.