Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 29 Oct 2014 (Wednesday) 04:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.

 
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,482 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4077
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Oct 29, 2014 09:15 |  #16

That is hilarious!!!


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 16 1.4 - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6318
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 29, 2014 09:24 |  #17

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #17239512 (external link)
Just goes to show how subjective art is and that some people have disposable incomes.

It's not a disposable incomes. It's about investments for collectors. The #1 Gursky probably was in an exhibit at a gallery and it probably sold for 5% of what it is fetching now and it was probably the collector that bought it at the show and then resold it that made all the money. The Weston and the Steichen sold originally for less than $100. The artists like Gursky and Sheman are making good livings off their work, especially now, but that wasn't always the case and it's the collectors that are making the big $$$$. They see it as investments and if you pay say 10K for a piece and sell it 40 years later for 2.5 million I'd say a great investment.

We should all be glad that photographs are fetching the kind of money that was only in paintings and other more traditional art forms.

The question should be if this is where the big $$ is and I don't get it. Maybe I should spend some time trying to figure out why instead of saying oh thats not the way should be. The brilliant folks on forums know so much more than those actually doing it. :lol:

And this stuff is not as suggestive and random as many here believe. But that takes some real time to learn and is SO MUCH more difficult than the technical side of the coin. And it's not about rules. Learning how to express yourself and becoming fluent in the language frees you from all rules.

Here
http://char.txa.cornel​l.edu/language/introla​n.htm (external link)

Taken from the next to the last paragraph one the first page.
The important point to remember is that we should all feel free to like or dislike what we will, on grounds of personal taste. HOWEVER, please note that there is a distinction between personal taste or preference and objective judgements of success or failure in a work of design or art. It is possible to recognize that a work is successful and significant, even though it does not suit our personal taste. It should be clear that unless one can lay claim to a high level of expertise it is rather immoderate to condemn a work as "bad" just because one doesn't like it. It is important for an artist to understand this distinction,......




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stsva
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,360 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 285
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Oct 29, 2014 09:29 |  #18

That's a classic! :D


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profile (external link)
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club https://photography-on-the.net …=744235&highlig​ht=hamsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6318
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 29, 2014 09:31 |  #19

stsva wrote in post #17239586 (external link)
That's a classic! :D

Really sums it up doesn't it...:lol::lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 187
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Oct 29, 2014 09:33 |  #20

I think I would happily display “The Pond – Moonlight”, or “Rhein II” on my walls. Possibly even "Tobolsk Kremlin”. Some of the really old ones might find a place on a book shelf or tucked away somewhere rather than on really prominent wall display, but I have little interest in most of the others.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6318
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 29, 2014 09:43 |  #21

I would love to own that Weston nude and and also his Cloud image that it looks like the nude(not shown in the link) and maybe a Pepper also. His nudes looked like clouds that looked like shells that looked like peppers that looked like nudes. His work had a very consistent vision and he had a very distinct style. No matter what the subject matter or equipment he used his work looks like Weston's work.

For these artists it was never about the single image. For Sherman's work especially, taking one photograph out of the series is like taking one sentence out of a book. A lot of her work is about the way woman are portrayed by the media and society thus they way the seen by many and therefor treated. It's hard to get that from one image but seen in the context it was meant to be seen in, a gallery or a book it takes on a different life.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,811 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4916
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Oct 29, 2014 09:43 |  #22

Let's remember the question posed by the OP was whether or not we would hang it on our walls. No more. No less. That question really does center around whether we like it or not.

I see many photos (and other types or art, as well) that I think are tremendous masterpieces . . . but I don't like them at all, and I certainly wouldn't hang them on my walls. One does need to be able to separate one's own tastes and preferences from their sense of judgement when evaluating art, especially if trying to make money by buying and selling pieces as investments.

But the question posed by the OP didn't involve any of this - they just asked if we would hang it on our walls, which is a really easy, simple question to answer because it doesn't (and shouldn't) involve any of this higher, enlightened thinking - it's just about if we like it or not. I'm glad that's all the feedback the OP asked for!


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6318
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 29, 2014 09:48 |  #23

I would hang most of them on my wall. Don't know if I have a wall large enough for the Gursky's..LoL...

All good work should involve some input and thought from the viewer and most great work does.

A great quote by Ralph Gibson.
"A good photograph, like a good painting, speaks with a loud voice and demands time and attention if it is to be fully perceived. An art lover is perfectly willing to hang a painting on a wall for years on end, but ask him to study a single photograph for ten unbroken minutes and he’ll think it’s a waste of time. Staying power is difficult to build into a photograph. Mostly, it takes content. A good photograph can penetrate the subconscious – but only if it is allowed to speak for however much time it needs to get there." - Ralph Gibson

What you are talking about Tom is immediate gratification and most great work is way beyond that. The obvious or nouns rarely have staying power. Yep you look at it get it and can move on. No reason to look deeper, There's nothing deeper there and only playing to the least common denominator. No reason to hang it on a wall and look at it for any length of time. It's obvious. Give me something that the more I look the more I get. Something that if I put on my wall doesn't bore me silly after one viewing but challenges me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
THREAD ­ STARTER
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 36
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Oct 29, 2014 10:59 |  #24

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17239622 (external link)
Let's remember the question posed by the OP was whether or not we would hang it on our walls. No more. No less. That question really does center around whether we like it or not.

I see many photos (and other types or art, as well) that I think are tremendous masterpieces . . . but I don't like them at all, and I certainly wouldn't hang them on my walls. One does need to be able to separate one's own tastes and preferences from their sense of judgement when evaluating art, especially if trying to make money by buying and selling pieces as investments.

But the question posed by the OP didn't involve any of this - they just asked if we would hang it on our walls, which is a really easy, simple question to answer because it doesn't (and shouldn't) involve any of this higher, enlightened thinking - it's just about if we like it or not. I'm glad that's all the feedback the OP asked for!

Then the next question is, if you owned a $2,000,000 plus original, would you hang it on the wall?

To be honest, most of those 'pieces of art' I wouldn't look twice at, except for the price tag maybe. Number 4 especially. Looks like a smart phone pic taken at the local cash and carry.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
380 posts
Likes: 83
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 29, 2014 11:27 |  #25

Whoever sold the Edward Weston for $1,609,000 most likely bought it for less than that and for good reason considers it to have been a wise investment. For the same reason, I'd hang any one of these photos in a bank vault while their value increased.

Financial considerations aside, I'd hang “The Pond – Moonlight” in the living room and maybe “99 Cent II Diptychon” in the kids' playroom.


Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link) Shadows of Turning (external link) Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
14,811 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4916
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Oct 29, 2014 11:44 |  #26

yogestee wrote in post #17239749 (external link)
Then the next question is, if you owned a $2,000,000 plus original, would you hang it on the wall?

Only if I really liked how it looked.

Back in the '90s, I learned a bit about contemporary wildlife art. I put that knowledge to use, and bought and sold limited edition lithographs (as well as a couple of originals) as a way to make money. Over approximately a decade, I bought about a hundred of these pieces. Quite a few of the pieces that I paid a lot of money for I did not like; I simply recognized that they were able to be had for much less than the current market, and so I would buy them to resell for a profit. Even though there were some pieces that I really, really liked, I don't recall ever hanging any of them on any of my walls. They were investments, and as investments, I didn't think that hanging on a wall was the most secure, or most convenient, place for them to be.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gossamer88
"something else"
Avatar
1,356 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 1700
Joined Aug 2014
Location: NYC
     
Oct 29, 2014 13:17 |  #27

Can't believe 'Afghan Girl' isn't on the list.


5D Mark IV | 7D Mark II | iPhone X | 70-200mm IS II | 100-400mm IS II | Sigma 150-600mm C
100mm 2.8 Macro | 85mm 1.8 | 50mm 1.8 STM | 35mm f/2 IS | 20mm 2.8 | 10-22mm USM

flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,550 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6318
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 29, 2014 14:29 |  #28

yogestee wrote in post #17239749 (external link)
Then the next question is, if you owned a $2,000,000 plus original, would you hang it on the wall?

To be honest, most of those 'pieces of art' I wouldn't look twice at, except for the price tag maybe. Number 4 especially. Looks like a smart phone pic taken at the local cash and carry.

Hardly a smart phone. Large format and 10 ft wide print with AMZING detail. ;)

To experience Gursky's work you need to see the prints.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
john5189
Senior Member
598 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
     
Oct 29, 2014 14:43 |  #29

We all want to find a rich mug!
Nothing wrong with making a rich dim-wit willingly part with some of their fortune for an ephemeral status symbol.


Wedding Photography in Herefordshire.  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snafoo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,431 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 712
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Peculiar
     
Oct 29, 2014 16:28 |  #30

Oh boy, this is so true.


http://www.jonstot.com​/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

21,541 views & 0 likes for this thread
Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is blood86
778 guests, 345 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.