«

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:10:39 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
: 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?

That picture needs a bicyclist on the bike path. The bike and rider would be
sharp, and the slightly OOF background would look right.

Bob

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:19:41 -0600, philo <> wrote:
: 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

But that's the point. The price is the product. The reason you pay that kind
of money for a picture like that is to prove that you can. If it had any
redeeming artistic value, it wouldn't be worth as much.

Bob

On 11/11/2011 08:33 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:19:41 -0600, philo<> wrote:
> : On 11/10/2011 02:50 PM, sobriquet wrote:
> :>


<snip>
> :
> :
> : 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
>
> But that's the point. The price is the product. The reason you pay that kind
> of money for a picture like that is to prove that you can. If it had any
> redeeming artistic value, it wouldn't be worth as much.
>
> Bob

Yes
you could be right there.

If I had "money to burn"

I'd probably enjoy it more by just plain burning it
rather than buying mediocre photography!

sobriquet <> writes:

> 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?

I don't think that's how the top art prices ever come about.

I think it has more to do with two people with a lot of money both very
much wanting the same picture. So that's random colissions among the
taste of a relatively small number of people.

> 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?

Note the size of the original; I suspect the impression of web versions
is VERY different from the impression the original would make.

On Nov 11, 5:20*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >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?
>
> I don't think that's how the top art prices ever come about.
>
> I think it has more to do with two people with a lot of money both very
> much wanting the same picture. *So that's random colissions among the
> taste of a relatively small number of people.

But how can we tell that taste is involved? It might just be people
who are
interested in obtaining a picture from Andreas Gursky regardless of
whether
or not the picture has any artistic value.
Maybe Andreas Gursky intentionally decided to take an extremely boring
picture without any artistic value as an experiment to see if it would
make
any difference regarding whether or not people would be willing to pay
a stupendous
amount of cash for it.
Suppose he would have made a picture with the lens cap still on the
camera, resulting
in a completely black frame with no details whatsoever, would people
still pay such an
enormous price for it based on the sole fact that it was Andreas
Gursky who pressed the
shutter button?

>
> > 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?
>
> Note the size of the original; I suspect the impression of web versions
> is VERY different from the impression the original would make.

So any boring picture becomes an interesting picture if you blow it up
to sufficient size?

sobriquet <> writes:

> On Nov 11, 5:20*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> >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?
>>
>> I don't think that's how the top art prices ever come about.
>>
>> I think it has more to do with two people with a lot of money both very
>> much wanting the same picture. *So that's random colissions among the
>> taste of a relatively small number of people.
>
> But how can we tell that taste is involved? It might just be people
> who are
> interested in obtaining a picture from Andreas Gursky regardless of
> whether
> or not the picture has any artistic value.

Entirely possible, yes; collecting as a collector rather than as an
art-lover.

> Maybe Andreas Gursky intentionally decided to take an extremely boring
> picture without any artistic value as an experiment to see if it would
> make
> any difference regarding whether or not people would be willing to pay
> a stupendous
> amount of cash for it.
> Suppose he would have made a picture with the lens cap still on the
> camera, resulting
> in a completely black frame with no details whatsoever, would people
> still pay such an
> enormous price for it based on the sole fact that it was Andreas
> Gursky who pressed the
> shutter button?

I'd bet "no".

However, that Philip Glass musical piece just might be a counter-example.

>> > 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?
>>
>> Note the size of the original; I suspect the impression of web versions
>> is VERY different from the impression the original would make.
>
> So any boring picture becomes an interesting picture if you blow it up
> to sufficient size?

Sometimes; by no means always.

Some pictures, in my experience, really need to be seen large to
appreciate . I have no idea if this is actually one; I haven't seen any
original prints of it.

On Nov 11, 8:13*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > Maybe Andreas Gursky intentionally decided to take an extremely boring
> > picture without any artistic value as an experiment to see if it would
> > make
> > any difference regarding whether or not people would be willing to pay
> > a stupendous
> > amount of cash for it.
> > Suppose he would have made a picture with the lens cap still on the
> > camera, resulting
> > in a completely black frame with no details whatsoever, would people
> > still pay such an
> > enormous price for it based on the sole fact that it was Andreas
> > Gursky who pressed the
> > shutter button?
>
> I'd bet "no".
>
> However, that Philip Glass musical piece just might be a counter-example.
> [..]

John Cage you mean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN2zcLBr_VM

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:30:44 -0800, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2011-11-10 20:19:41 -0800, philo <> 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.

I wonder how many people viewing this post and clicking on the link
know which image is Rhein II. It is not the one of the building and
all the people. (The one that I like very much)

It is the photograph of the river that I spell "Rhine"..third from the
top. The one that some people would shoot as HDR and make a rather
insipid scene no less insipid subject-wise, but a dog's breakfast of
color. At least Gursky shows some restraint in this area.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:04:18 -0500, tony cooper <>
wrote:
: On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:30:44 -0800, Savageduck
: <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
:
: >On 2011-11-10 20:19:41 -0800, philo <> 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.
:
: I wonder how many people viewing this post and clicking on the link
: know which image is Rhein II. It is not the one of the building and
: all the people. (The one that I like very much)

Likewise, FWIW.

: It is the photograph of the river that I spell "Rhine"..

That's because Gursky is German and you're not.

Bob

sobriquet <> writes:

> On Nov 11, 8:13*pm, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> sobriquet <dohduh...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > Maybe Andreas Gursky intentionally decided to take an extremely boring
>> > picture without any artistic value as an experiment to see if it would
>> > make
>> > any difference regarding whether or not people would be willing to pay
>> > a stupendous
>> > amount of cash for it.
>> > Suppose he would have made a picture with the lens cap still on the
>> > camera, resulting
>> > in a completely black frame with no details whatsoever, would people
>> > still pay such an
>> > enormous price for it based on the sole fact that it was Andreas
>> > Gursky who pressed the
>> > shutter button?
>>
>> I'd bet "no".
>>
>> However, that Philip Glass musical piece just might be a counter-example.
>> [..]
>
> John Cage you mean?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN2zcLBr_VM

Ah, that would explain why I had trouble finding the reference to the
exact piece. Yes.