Don’t forget the real land comes with the dog shit he photoshopped out. You might want to reduce your bid a little.
I dunno, I think it proves rich folks value only prestige pricing. I really need to bring my chewed up Bic pens to Christie’s and start the bidding at 1 million.
You mean it’s not a screen capture from Teletubbies? Wow. Who knew?
I’m just impressed that you have a 350 cm x 200 cm monitor! No wonder you don’t have any money left over for fancy photographs.
The photo looks like a Rothko.
Nah. The Rothkos don’t suck at least. But, seriously, I should reserve judgment until I see it in person, but I really don’t get why that particular Gursky should fetch that money, nor why Gursky seems to regard it as his best work. shrug
not if the RIAA/MPAA/ABCD has anything to say about it. your copy alone has cost the owner $4.3 million in sales. not to mention the trillions (trillions! i tell you!) lost because of thieving pirates like you. you are the reason why the photography industry is dying. a subpoena will be sent to you shortly. pay up or go to jail you right-clicking son of a rat! i bet you stole that computer too, didn’t you?
Piracy is Theft
Not a great picture, aside from the name of the photographer.
There’s nothing artistic in the photo, no great technique, gigantic depth of field, and heavily photoshopped.
If I had taken that picture I’d erased it without a second thought.
(I want to say “it’s not even art” but there’s WW III in the Pit for statements like that).
Of course, it’s the guy’s money so he can spend it in whatever he likes.
Exactly. What suckers!
I wouldn’t think that picture particularly remarkable if I came across it in someone’s Flikr collection. On the other hand, the photographer’s wiki page has a couple of genuinely interesting images (sadly, only low-res though).
Wiki’s list of most expensive photographsmakes for interesting reading. Billy the Kid makes an appearance at no 6.
I would pay $3 for that, tops. I just don’t like it. And I have actually purchased “art” before, just not to that extent. I spent about $1000 on a Dezo Hoffman limited edition [limited to a thousand] Beatles print (The one from “Hard Days Night” where they’re all jumping in the air.) And when I was working at Dunkin’ Donuts making barely more than minimum wage I bought a Tom & Jerry animation cel for around $800. (Took me a long time to pay off, but I didn’t mind because I thought the guy who ran the gallery was cute - despite him being maybe 15 years older than me, lol - so got to see him frequently while making payments, and he got to display the picture until I ponied up the dough. Win/win!)
Also, when there used to be a Warner Brother’s store (God how I miss them!) My head was turned often a time by the Speed Racer cels. When I was a kid I actually wanted to marry Speed Racer. I also wanted to be the first professional lady baseball player, or a tiger.
You know it’s pretty big, right? (11.5 feet by 6.5 feet)
If you have a source for photographic prints that big for $3, let me know!
If anyone’s looking for a bargain, I’ll go out tonight and shoot a picture of the drainage canal near my house. I can make you a print for about 500k.
-“for me it is an allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are”
-“a dramatic and profound reflection on human existence and our relationship to nature on the cusp of the 21st century”
Holy crap that bullshit gets thick.
“And this dog poop on the bottom of my shoe defines the societal struggle of the individuals spiritual awakening.”:rolleyes:
It’s some nice horizontal bands of color and texture. It’s fine. I’d pay $20 for a 2’ x 3’ print.
Yeah, I have to say, this is more or less where I stand on this photograph. That sort of cold minimialism has never really done it for me. The only reason I’d want a 2’x3’ print is because it is a Gursky. But, like I said, maybe it’s different in person and in scale, but I kind of doubt it.
A couple of issues ago, The New Yorker had an article (I think by Janet Malcolm) about a large-format photographer who was just commissioned to do a portrait of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.
Some time is spent on the article discussing the complexities of large-format print-making and the eye of a high-end photographer and what they see. The article includes a photograph taken by the subject of the article (a German artist named Thomas Struth) at a factory; Malcolm describes being in the factory and not having the vision to see the architectural structure of the various machines and how they would translate to the photograph included with the article.
Here is the article link, but I think you need to register with the New Yorker online to access it: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/09/26/110926fa_fact_malcolm
So after that appreciation, I am open to hearing that there is more to be seen in a large-format photograph if you see it in person, but I am inclined to go with the general consensus of this thread that this particular photograph dpesn’t seem to be the best example to illustrate that…
I wouldn’t pay anywhere near that for anything, even if I had the money. But whether I would even find the photo desirable to purchase was decided when I read he digitally removed stuff out of it. At that point, it’s not a photograph, but an over-realistic painting that has no value to me beyond the small version I saw on my computer screen.
As a photographer who doesn’t digitally manipulate extensively and comes from a photojournalism background, that sort of stuff doesn’t bother me, except in the cases where the photo is supposed to be documentary/journalism. In fine art, anything goes. All that matters to me is the final impact of the work. Who gives a shit if it’s Photoshopped or if it’s taken on a film or digital medium or whether it’s printed using traditional photo chemicals as a C print or an inkjet printed giclee? All that matters is the visual impact, not how you got there.
I don’t care for it and wouldn’t buy it at any price.
Is it technically a photograph at this point? It started out as a photograph of course but then it was changed, to make it a distinct work of art. Not one I would pay $4 million for but not just a photo either.
In the end, if someone has to explain to me why I should like a work of art (as this one does) then I feel like the artwork has failed, for me. Still a pretty and interesting picture but I’m going to hold onto my 4 million bucks for something that at least has some nudity.