Most expensive photo in the world

Obviously this sold at this price due to several factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the photograph. The same goes for the Cindy Sherman photo. To analyze whether either of these photos are the greatest photo ever taken is rediculous.

nightcat wrote in post #13503034
Obviously this sold at this price due to several factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the photograph. The same goes for the Cindy Sherman photo. To analyze whether either of these photos are the greatest photo ever taken is rediculous.

I don't recall anyone arguing if it was or wasn't the greatest of all time. My point was that it is effective as a piece of art, that the price got exactly what the piece was worth and that art can be judged objectively.

There is no reason to loose youre temper here... You have another oppinion than me thats all.

I don't think it is the audience foult when an artist is not able to communicate with ordinary people. I think it is the artist that is not gifted enough.

Art is not something that you should put in the same box as science. You don't need to have an doctoral degree to understand the value of mathematic or physics. Most people understand the value of that. But art is in another cind of business than science. Art is a part of entertainment not science. And if the painting, photo, poem, sculpture etc is not making sense to anyone outside of the internal culture club, well then the entertainment value is close to nothing. And in my eyes, the artist is then no longer making any important contribution to the society.

In the same way as an musician should be able to make music that touch the heart of people that have no clue about how to play an instrument, so should an painter and photographer be able to communicate to people that have no clue about lines, colours, f.stop or history of art.

I am not impressed by art made for other artists, I am impressed when someone produce art that is recognized as incredible even by the uneducated. The picture mentioned here is not achieving that.

In Europe most galeries and artist are funded by the government, or by investors that buy the art in the same way as stock (with the expectancy that they can earn money on them). What the second group is doing is in my eyes totaly uninteresting, they can do what they want with their money. But how the government is using their money is another question. Tax money should be used for the benefit of ordinary people and not to feed the investors that speculate in art as a way to make money. To buy art that only people with an higher education understands is not a great way of spending tax money. The painting here is priced by the investors, and I realy don't care about that. But if the government payd that amount of money for it, I would have gladly signed any petition to protest about the waste of money.

kent andersen wrote in post #13503208
There is no reason to loose youre temper here... You have another oppinion than me thats all.

I don't think it is the audience foult when an artist is not able to communicate with ordinary people. I think it is the artist that is not gifted enough.

Art is not something that you should put in the same box as science. You don't need to have an doctoral degree to understand the value of mathematic or physics. Most people understand the value of that. But art is in another cind of business than science. Art is a part of entertainment not science. And if the painting, photo, poem, sculpture etc is not making sense to anyone outside of the internal culture club, well then the entertainment value is close to nothing.

In the same way as an musician should be able to make music that touch the heart of people that have no clue about how to play an instrument, so should an painter and photographer be able to communicate to people that have no clue about lines, colours, f.stop or history of art.

I am not impressed by art made for other artists, I am impressed when someone produce art that is recognized as incredible even by the uneducated.

A big diff and I didn't loose my temper just my patients.

You really don't get it and my patients are at the end. Knowledge is there for everyone. Sad we live in a time when those that have knowledge which everyone can get are labeled as elitists. Hey Mike, you and Ross were right but I tried.... You can lead a horse to water...........

Are you really a doctor, and why are your patients leaving just because of your views on art?

No because I have to keep repeating my self because no one goes back to read previous posts. What is being described in 132 & 138 is what someone likes or dislikes. There are tons of paintings, photographs, movies, music and other things I like and things I produce myself everyday that is not art. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with liking things that are not art. What one likes or dislikes is also very subjective. And I guess this is what someone gets for trying to help with the other part of it all. There is plenty to find when one wants to talk about f/stops and shutter speeds but you are seeing right now why there is so little discussion about the really difficult part of it all the content of what is being produced. Susan Sontag touched on this in her book On Photography. And what do I know? I only do this full time and have for a couple of decades and I don't shoot weddings and family portraits. I have been in dozens of one man shows and large group exhibits and have had some success selling but that could never support my family so I do it for money to give us a halfway decent life. What do I know. I guess this is what one gets when they try to share knowledge especially if its not what the masses wanna hear.

I am pretty sure this photographer was not counting on one of his prints fetching 4.3 million in his lifetime. That is incredibly rare. In regards to making bad art and having it sell for millions I can only say that there is a huge disconnect from where we are sitting and where the buyer is sitting. And even greater lesson is that we have less reference now for what has value in an image than at any time due to the sheer volume of imagery available to us. In the collectors arena there are many factors in play. In the viewers world there is only one factor in play; does it satisfy me.

Gel wrote in post #13502621
380k :

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I can go 50p and the rest of a stale ale from the night before watch out for floaters. If you had a sand bar in there I could go 75p. I do like the image though. It has a morning light quality to it when the air is fresh and the breeze cool on the skin.

jetcode wrote in post #13503729
I am pretty sure this photographer was not counting on one of his prints fetching 4.3 million in his lifetime. That is incredibly rare. In regards to making bad art and having it sell for millions I can only say that there is a huge disconnect from where we are sitting and where the buyer is sitting. And even greater lesson is that we have less reference now for what has value in an image than at any time due to the sheer volume of imagery available to us. In the collectors arena there are many factors in play. In the viewers world there is only one factor in play; does it satisfy me.

I can go 50p and the rest of a stale ale from the night before watch out for floaters. If you had a sand bar in there I could go 75p. I do like the image though. It has a morning light quality to it when the air is fresh and the breeze cool on the skin.

And again Gursky probably didn't get that. The collector that bought it did. That collector saw what I saw and made an objective judgements and those judgements paid off I'd say. I doubt seriously I would pay that if I had it but again I'm commenting on a piece I haven't seen. I would be more inclined to buy a Weston, Callahan or an Adams. But many keep trying to put suggestive judgements like/dislike in a world where it might be more appropriate to uses a more objective approach in understanding.

Think of it like Platos Cave. When you are in the cave and have never been outside the cave there is an entire world of things that you don't know about. It does kinda amaze me at how many people don't want to leave the safety of the cave to see the world that they have no knowledge exists. The world where an image can get this kind of money clearly exists and there are objective reason why many of those outside the cave think its art.

Because of the sheer volume of work I think its even more important to understand not in a like or dislike way but in a objective way how to help weed out what is important and what isn't. And because the herd can more easily overcome technique its the visuals that are going to become more and more important. Remember the ones making the real decisions on all this are doing just objectively judging.

What does surprise me Joe is how many of the photographers you like use the language that has been used for centuries to help them in the shooting and editing process. They are so goods at it it become second nature so the thought process doesn't even kick in while creating only during the editing and processing does it kick in.

But instead of everyone putting up so much resistance to all of this why not learn as much as you can and then after having the knowledge you can always go back to the old way of thinking. But that requires one to step out of the safety of the cave. I say become as fluent as you can in the language those outside the cave are speaking. Its what I will continue to strive for myself. The journey is a long life long one.

Allen when was the last time you were 27? What were your views on photography then? Have they changed? IMO no need to get a flat tire over the fact that few are ever at the same place at the same time.

jetcode wrote in post #13504010
Allen when was the last time you were 27? What were your views on photography then? Have they changed? IMO no need to get a flat tire over the fact that few are ever at the same place at the same time.

We are all constantly growing and I am always open to new thinking bro. If not I wouldn't have the opinions I now have and those are in a constant state of flux. But for me not to comment would be the easy way out, right?

Learn all you can and dare to explore everything especially early on because I look at it this way, we have the rest of out lives to become narrow and closed minded.

What I get a flat tire over are the elitist comments (not made by you) made by those that clearly have no desire to step outside the cave.

I was merely alluding to the point that a beginners mind is not necessarily a seasoned mind of reason

jetcode wrote in post #13504120
I was merely alluding to the point that a beginners mind is not necessarily a seasoned mind of reason

They will never be more than beginners if not challenged. I know I needed some prodding.

I produce a lot of work in a week. Most of what i produce is for commercial reason and I would never consider art. I don't try and create art with my persoanl work. I have a couple of images that I've taken and once in a while with some of my personal work I see some of myself in that work. But its very very rare indeed.

I have made good solid photographs in both my professional work and my personal work but it is very rare that when put under an objective impersonal review I find real value. But just every once in a great while there is something there thats more.

Joe you have created a few things that can be judged on an objective level and are in my opinion art. You know the triptych I refer to . I would love to have that piece in my office.

I say step out and see the world and then decide to go back in the cave if you so desire. The funny part is the more you look at better work and the more you learn the more you see these visuals the more they start showing up in your own work even subconsciously. Then people that do use some of those elements to evaluate work that do view your work on a more objective level will see it and start taking your work more seriously. And then some of these images that get attention are not such a mystery to you and you can still like or dislike them but at least you know why they are being taken seriously. I've said this before I don't think I will ever be a fan of Witkins work but I do understand why his work was/is important.

I'm out but continue the conversation. Gotta mortgage to pay and no one is really listening anyway.

jetcode wrote in post #13503729
I am pretty sure this photographer was not counting on one of his prints fetching 4.3 million in his lifetime. That is incredibly rare. In regards to making bad art and having it sell for millions I can only say that there is a huge disconnect from where we are sitting and where the buyer is sitting. And even greater lesson is that we have less reference now for what has value in an image than at any time due to the sheer volume of imagery available to us. In the collectors arena there are many factors in play. In the viewers world there is only one factor in play; does it satisfy me.


I can go 50p and the rest of a stale ale from the night before watch out for floaters. If you had a sand bar in there I could go 75p. I do like the image though. It has a morning light quality to it when the air is fresh and the breeze cool on the skin.

You're the guy from the Ferrero Rocher ad aren't you?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13503538
There are tons of paintings, photographs, movies, music and other things I like and things I produce myself everyday that is not art.

If I post a photograph, can you tell me if it is art or not, and justify that claim?

Art is subjective and is only relevant to the viewer at that single point in time.

Whether it continues to be or becomes art with repeated viewing is also subjective.