most expensive picture ever

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sobriquet, Nov 10, 2011.

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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?
     
    sobriquet, Nov 10, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sobriquet

    Irwell Guest

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

    > http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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?
     
    Irwell, Nov 10, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet

    RichA Guest

    On Nov 10, 3:50 pm, sobriquet <> wrote:
    > http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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?
     
    RichA, Nov 10, 2011
    #3
  4. sobriquet

    philo Guest

    On 11/10/2011 02:50 PM, sobriquet wrote:
    >
    >
    > http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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
     
    philo, Nov 11, 2011
    #4
  5. sobriquet

    Sandman Guest

    In article <2011111022304475249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    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/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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]
     
    Sandman, Nov 11, 2011
    #5
  6. sobriquet

    Sandman Guest

    In article
    <>,
    sobriquet <> wrote:

    > http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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]
     
    Sandman, Nov 11, 2011
    #6
  7. sobriquet

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    (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]
     
    Sandman, Nov 11, 2011
    #7
  8. sobriquet

    Trevor Guest

    "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "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.
     
    Trevor, Nov 11, 2011
    #8
  9. sobriquet

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

    > Sandman <> wrote:
    > >In article <>,
    > > (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]
     
    Sandman, Nov 11, 2011
    #9
  10. "Sandman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > (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.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 11, 2011
    #10
  11. sobriquet

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:10:39 -0800 (PST), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Nov 10, 3:50 pm, sobriquet <> wrote:
    : > http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 11, 2011
    #11
  12. sobriquet

    Robert Coe Guest

    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/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 11, 2011
    #12
  13. sobriquet

    philo Guest

    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!
     
    philo, Nov 11, 2011
    #13
  14. sobriquet <> writes:

    > http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 11, 2011
    #14
  15. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Nov 11, 5:20 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > sobriquet <> writes:
    > >http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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, Nov 11, 2011
    #15
  16. sobriquet <> writes:

    > On Nov 11, 5:20 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> sobriquet <> writes:
    >> >http://cdn.trendland.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 11, 2011
    #16
  17. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On Nov 11, 8:13 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > sobriquet <> 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
     
    sobriquet, Nov 11, 2011
    #17
  18. sobriquet

    tony cooper Guest

    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/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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
     
    tony cooper, Nov 11, 2011
    #18
  19. sobriquet

    Robert Coe Guest

    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/uploads/2010/12/andreas-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
     
    Robert Coe, Nov 11, 2011
    #19
  20. sobriquet <> writes:

    > On Nov 11, 8:13 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >> sobriquet <> 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.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 11, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nikki
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    387
    George
    Oct 11, 2003
  2. OCZ Guy

    xD-Picture Card why are these so expensive ?>

    OCZ Guy, Aug 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    348
    HRosita
    Aug 30, 2004
  3. Heidi Manway

    Are the most Expensive Always Best?

    Heidi Manway, Nov 22, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    608
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    465
    Bruce
    Sep 5, 2010
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    182
    Sandman
    Feb 18, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page