Ya' wanna' see what a $70,000.00 photograph looks like?

[Picture North Carolina]

The roof photo at the top of this news story. (http://www.artknowledgenews.com/Berman_Photo_Collection.html)

Ya' got me. I'm speechless. I just don't know how people do it. Must be who you know, not what you produce. Sigh. /Dan

[tomd]

I don't see the appeal either. I've seen a lot more interesting and finely composed pictures right here on POTN

[Picture North Carolina]

I don't see the appeal either. I've seen a lot more interesting and finely composed pictures right here on POTN

Yeah, I guess that's the point. However, this is a learning lesson to me. To think I've been dragging my butt outa' bed in the middle of the night, driving 3 hours to get to a location before sunrise, then shooting in sub-freezing weather when all I had to do was drink a suitcase of beer the night before, stumble outa' bed around noon, walk across the street and shoot a pic of the air conditioning unit on the local McDonald's, then sell it for $45,000. Sheesh, how stupid can I get? ;) /Dan

[MattMoore]

I think it's less about the actual photo and more about who did the photography/developing/transfer.

I saw a show on photo auctions on Ovation once, the collectors were WAY more interested in who took/developed/transfered the photos than what the photo was actually of.

Sort of how a genuine painting is worth a lot more than a reproduction (even if they were completely identical in every other way except the actual artist who did the actual brushstrokes).

[ZekaG]

Good use of the rule of thirds. Nothing else that really appeals to me either.
An average flickr photo is more interesting for me to look at...

[Tixeon]

Ahh....but the trick is, you usually have to be dead (and with a reputation) to get those prices. Just think, the photos you throw away today, may be worth a fortune after you are dead & famous. Just our luck, right?

[crazyskillz07]

Great... so faking a death can help sales! lol

[MattMoore]

what was cool was the part of the show when they explained how they detected fake transfers.

[Dchemist]

I don't know if its worth $70K, but If you want to read about William Eggleston's work, you can do so here: http://www.egglestontrust.com/guide_intro.html. More information about him and some additional images can be found here: http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1540 He is recognized one of the most influencial color photographers of the 20th century.

[Kadath]

Uh huh, why is this worth 1.2 MILLION?

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003466018

[ryant35]

Yeah, I guess that's the point. However, this is a learning lesson to me. To think I've been dragging my butt outa' bed in the middle of the night, driving 3 hours to get to a location before sunrise, then shooting in sub-freezing weather

I've done that before. It didn't pay anything for me either.

[HectorsGTI]

Uh huh, why is this worth 1.2 MILLION?

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003466018

Because Gursky provides viewers with a new visual vocabulary in which to comprehend the massive changes that have been brought on through globalization and commercialism. That's Why. Or so the article tells you. I wouldn't even hang that in my crapper.

[b0ng0]

Well I think that's from 1971 so for a standard film photograph it maybe requires a fair bit of skill to achieve. But I certainly don't think it's worth 70k, you can see the photographers shadow from his head at the bottom :p.

[DocFrankenstein]

Let me guess, you look at the malevich's "black square" and think you could paint it? And then read mrs. Dalloway and yet again, it makes no sense?

[Picture North Carolina]

Because Gursky provides viewers with a new visual vocabulary in which to comprehend the massive changes that have been brought on through globalization and commercialism. That's Why. Or so the article tells you. I wouldn't even hang that in my crapper.

LOL. That's the funniest damn thing I've read in here in a long time! But the question is, if you would not hang it, would you wipe with it? :);)


Actually, I think that quote is what is called "art speak." It's the type of thing the extremely wealthy wing of the art, wine and brie crowd babble (something that is beyond even their own comprehension) to make it sound like they know what they are talking about to conceal the fact they have no other explanation why they paid $70,000 for a picture of a fruit stand roof. /Dan

[89AKurt]

As far as I'm concerned, being a simpleton, art is for people with more money than sense, and big fancy words to justify the expense. That's why I'll never understand art.

[airfrogusmc]

Art collectors collect for allot of different reasons. Some collect because they just love art. Some collect for investment. Some do it for both. You laugh and make fun of someone paying 70 grand for an Eggleston print well I'm sure that print will only go up in value. It probably sold for a grand or so in 71. Not a bad investment. Keep on laugh'n but when was the last time you sold a print for 70 grand. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Croasdail]

As far as I'm concerned, being a simpleton, art is for people with more money than sense, and big fancy words to justify the expense. That's why I'll never understand art.

And yet... for having so little sense... they have the ability to earn an lot more money then most. What an interesting paradox. Stupid people make more money then all the smart ones making fun of them.... very odd indeed. - Kurt - I am just pulling your chain here.... having some fun with ya...

But seriously to the subject - it has also a lot to do if whether or not it is an original or not. You can go out to your local mall and buy a large Ansel Adams print for under a hundred bucks. You go out and buy the same print but done by the photographer himself, and all of a sudden it has more value - much more. A lot has to do with the hands that created it. Me, I am happy with the reproductions. But to others, owning something that the creator touched and made themselves carries it's own value - there are only so many of them to be had.

[_aravena]

Guess no one has heard of the guy who vomits then makes paintings that sell for thousands?

[Picture North Carolina]

Guess no one has heard of the guy who vomits then makes paintings that sell for thousands?

No, I haven't. But you know what? I'm not surprised. Neither would I be surprised to find out a TV story has been done about him in which he was labeled a "contemporary artist."

Not a bad job either, if you think about it. Sit at a table. Eat scrumptious food. Stick your finger down your throat. Make a 6-digit income! ;) /Dan

[TomTomTuning]

Crazy what people would pay for some things..
God let me just sell a couple shots for that much and ill be set.

Id love to do photography full time, beats seating at a desk all day

[V8Rumble]

Uh huh, why is this worth 1.2 MILLION?

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003466018Becau se his work was featured in a New York museum.

[Peter Pawinski]

Because Gursky provides viewers with a new visual vocabulary in which to comprehend the massive changes that have been brought on through globalization and commercialism. That's Why. Or so the article tells you. I wouldn't even hang that in my crapper.

Wow! Personally, I think that Gursky diptych is amazing. I've never seen that before, don't know who he is, but I think I'll be Googling a bit today. Those photos are great from a technical standpoint (composition is absolutely perfect) and they truly elevate the mundane, everyday to something more. Order out of chaos. It really is a brilliant, beautiful photo. Is it worth $1.2 million? If someone is willing to pay that much for it, sure.

Here's some more Gursky I found. (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.culturevulture.net/ArtAndArch/images/gurskyShanghai.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.culturevulture.net/ArtAndArch/Gursky.htm&h=1500&w=965&sz=83&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=dbBmSvQc3vQ4EM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgursky%2B99%2Bcent%26imgsz%3Dxxlarge% 26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN) This is awesome stuff. Awesome. I've found my next Amazon purchase.

And, no, I'm not being sarcastic. I love modern art, but it's rare for me to find a modern art photographer that I like. A lot of it looks like boring crap to me. Gorsky's work screams craftsmanship and vision, a mix of skill and concept that I sometimes find lacking in modern art. A lot of it seems to me to be more concept than execution. Gorsky nails both from what little I've seen so far.

[goforphoto]

Some people could take a picture of a turd and get thousands of dollars for it. I guess it goes back to the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

[Lord_Malone]

I'm going to take a photo the back of my lens cap and see how much I can get for it.

[Curtis N]

It's all about the ego of the guy writing the check.

They buy Bentleys so they can say "I own a Bentley."

They buy Eggleston prints so they can say "I own an Eggleston print."

Eggleston made some nice pictures in his day. This one isn't one of them.

[mabas9395]

Looking at that first photo with the peaches sign, you would think that for that price they could have photoshopped the powerlines out of it.

[airfrogusmc]

Looking at that first photo with the peaches sign, you would think that for that price they could have photoshopped the powerlines out of it.

Those power lines help the design. The power lines help lead your eye into the image and help ballance the strong lines on the roof.

Something I posted in another thread.

Allot of the great photographers work in bodies of work. Images that relate in some way. Think about how hard it can be to string 40 images for an exhibit together let alone hundreds that span years and years of work. The hard part is letting go of good images that don't fit the theme or your personal style.
To take just one image out of a body of work and singling out one would be like taking a paragraph from Hemmingway out of a book of his and not seeing the greatness of the paragraph because it being taken out of context. In a body of work the images should all support one another like pieces of a puzzle to make a much larger whole. Eggleston is a good example of what I'm talking about. A large group of his photographs together can give you a glimpse of what suburban America was all about during the 50s & 60s. To see an individual image is like reading a paragraph from The Sun Also Rises or seeing just one piece of the puzzle doesn't give you enough to see whats really going on. What can happen with collectors is they can have say 20 images from a series and maybe only need one more to complete the set and the one up for auction could be that missing piece so they might bid allot for that one image to fill in the set.

Another

Whats more America than the corporatism of the 50s & 60s and Coke was, since almost its beginning, the corporate branding king and it was a die transfer print that takes about a half day to make the first print. Labs used to charge $500 for an 11X14 and there were like only a few places that would even do die transfer in the world. The light on that image was racking (early/late) bringing out the wonderful texture in the tin roof, two primary colors and the strong lines being repeated by the power/phone lines which also dotted the scenery then and still do. Is it worth that kind of $$$ I donno but if someone that knows feel his work is important and those that don't get it would take the time to try and learn why some think its important maybe some day those that don't understand could make a body of work thats considered important. I wouldn't pay it either. But if I had some real $$$ and maybe Westons Cypress image at Point Lobos or Adams Moonrise might be on my wall. :wink: And maybe a portfolio of Egglestons work...

[Peter Pawinski]

Those power lines help the design. The power lines help lead your eye into the image and help ballance the strong lines on the roof.


I agree. Eliminating the power lines would kill the photo completely. The Peaches photo doesn't really do it for me like the Gursky, but it is a somewhat interesting visual piece, with the strong lines, the contrast of complimentary blue and orange, the faded Coke sign, etc. It's something I would have to consider in the context of a larger opus. No, it's not something I would pay $70,000 for if I saw it in an art sale. It's not as obviously powerful and special to me as 99 Cents. From what I've seen of Egglestone's work, it's not exactly my cup of tea, but it is somewhat interesting to me from a more abstract perspective.

[Mum2J&M]

It's all about the ego of the guy writing the check.

They buy Bentleys so they can say "I own a Bentley."

They buy Eggleston prints so they can say "I own an Eggleston print."

Eggleston made some nice pictures in his day. This one isn't one of them.

:lol:

[keyx]

Some people could take a picture of a turd and get thousands of dollars for it. I guess it goes back to the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

close... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/30/nart30.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/06/30/ixnewstop.html

[Picture North Carolina]

close... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/06/30/nart30.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/06/30/ixnewstop.html



Now this is funny. The artists puts his crap (literally) in a can and turns it into a "work of art" to make a statement about the art market and a gallery comes along and pays big... for his pile of crap. Laughably ironic. I'll bet the artist laughed for days. /Dan

[slimninj4]

This is insane price but someone loves it enough to pay for it.

Cannedheat I saw that on the news a bit ago. Now that is funny