Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.

How many of these would you hang on your wall?

http://blazepress.com …ve-photographs-ever-sold/

A few I would, but of course, not all great photography is meant to 'hang on walls.’

Anyway, awaiting comments ranging from my "dog could take better photos" to "a secrete elite, hyper-pretentious cabal orchestrates the art world.”

My comments verbosely noted below in my two art-related links.

I'm out, but PM's always welcome.

10 + 6,

but im picky

Bearsummer

Maybe I'm too critical?

I feel like we've had this thread before....

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with those images. I just have no idea what makes them worth that much money..... Maybe if I where super rich I would understand.....

The art world is interesting.

I would love it if Number 2 was posted here in the Critique Corner just to see the comments and recommendations.

I don't understand art, I guess.

I like to make pictures that other people will like to look at.

Probably just this one...
Edward Steichen: “The Pond – Moonlight”

ythe1300 wrote in post #17239294
I feel like we've had this thread before....

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with those images. I just have no idea what makes them worth that much money..... Maybe if I where super rich I would understand.....

It's the people behind the image, not the images themselves. If you take away the names and try to sell the images, you'd be lucky to get a few bucks if anything at all but tack on Gursky or Sherman on the photo and suddenly is priceless..

Yeah those guys are in some secret society. LoL


They had to become Gursky and Sherman somehow. I can tell you they didn't do it taking photographs to please the experts on a forum. So maybe we all need to reevaluate how were are judging and evaluating work. Just maybe they are right and many here are wrong ....

yogestee wrote in post #17239178
How many of these would you hang on your wall?

None. I think they are all kind of ugly. Just because they sold for a lot of money does not mean they are in good taste. And it doesn't mean they are in bad taste, either. It just means they sold for a lot. I don't care for the subject matter of any of them, and I also don't care for the composition of most of them, with "Rhein II", "99 cent . . .", "The Pond . . .", and the Weston being possible exceptions.

The only one that interested me at all is "Billy the Kid", and that's ONLY because of the history. None of the others --

Art is an odd issue anyway -- lots of things I see people pay outrageous sums for seem less worthy than the price. But, what happens often in the art world, the old saying "Money means nothing to "XXX", and then that "XXX" goes out and proves it. Often, it's more about "I can" than what makes sense ...

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate art ... and we hang art on our walls too. But we can appreciate a piece of art we find at a garage sale for $20 bucks equally as much as art that hangs in a museum and has a value tagged at $XXX million.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17239485
Just maybe they are right and many here are wrong ....

But it's not about right and wrong. It is about what we like and what we don't like.

"Right vs. Wrong" makes it seem like there is some fixed standard that we must adhere to, and that seems to fly in the face of what art (and freedom of choice/expression) are all about.

It's not right to like something and wrong to not like it. To say or infer that would be to pass judgment on someone's aesthetic preferences.

Just goes to show how subjective art is and that some people have disposable incomes.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17239344
The art world is interesting.

I would love it if Number 2 was posted here in the Critique Corner just to see the comments and recommendations.

Great Photographers on the Internet