Actually, I like it quite a bit.
I would offer a bit less than what it sold for, however.
mmm
Photo
[David Tennant]
Whot?
Whot?
Whot?!?!
[/David Tennant]
I actually do like Gursky and have a book of his work at home, but at that point you’re really just paying for the name and collectibility. (Obviously.) I wouldn’t buy that particular photography, but his work 99 Cent II, I might pay up to, oh, around $10K for. Of course, that’s about $3.35 million less than it actually sold for.
Why would I pay anything for it? I already have it right here on my computer.
I’ve always wanted to get a signed print of that hill scene that came as the default background with XP installations. I don’t know who took it, and I assume it’s just some kind of stock photo, but that’s got to be one of the most looked-at photos in the world.
Oh, holy cow, don’t know why I never searched it before. Here’s the story and the photographer.
I like it, but it’s not that profound. Most of the price is attached to the name.
And it’s been photoshopped past the point where I’d still consider it a photograph. It’s more of a photo illustration.
How do you sell a print as museum piece anyway? Do you promise never to make another one? It’s not as unique as a painting or sculpture since you can just produce infinite perfect copies from the negative or hard drive.
“It says a lot using the most minimal means … for me it is an allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are.”
Okaaaaaay…
Mostly fake but nothing a bunch of cash can’t make better.
From pulykamell’s link, “How a sun-kissed California view became the most recognisable vista on the planet.” (bolding mine)
I see what he did there. 
(Yes, I know it was XP and not Vista.)
I wouldn’t have given them a dime more than $3.7 million for it.
This is the kind of useless information I want filling my brain. I’m being serious. I love the Dope.
That says (exact quote)
Admittedly that’s going to be of incredible value once interstellar travel is feasible, but even then I hope he at least held out for one in this part of the galaxy.
That just proves it: rich folk sure are stupid.
This is really not the type of art that 99-precenters are capable of understanding.
Wow. He’s not even trying!
The only reason I’d take it off your hands is to sell it. Like Jack says, it’s not even a photo any more, really. I’ve done digital paintings like that - from scratch, not just modifying an existing picture - but I’m not some big name photographer that people fawn over.
I wish he would have just said,
“What is it? It’s a picture of the Rhine and I took some distracting shit out.What’s it mean? It means the Rhine on a cloudy day is pretty fucking mundane.”
To me it looks like somebody’s vacation photo. One that was snapped accidentally.
I’d pay $4.3 million for every square inch of land IN that picture.
Obviously the money was for the name, though I like 99 Cent II much better. One thing that the computer screen can’t provide is the impact of size for some of these type of pieces. Seeing a photo as a 3x5" isn’t really the same as seeing it covering a good portion of a large wall. What seems mundane while small can carry much more impact when seen at its intended dimensions.