28 replies to this topic

[hollywood]

I saw a nice Gursky today at White Cube.



They are impressive objects and worth seeing one in the flesh. The physical presence is quite important.

So, how much would you pay for that one?

Is it that you object to paying $4 million for a photo (but the same amount for a painting would be ok)?

I don't object at all. I'm not making a 99% statement. I'm just surprised that so much was paid for one very recent photo when there are lots of older revered photos available. As for paintings, in a way the photo reminds me of a Rothko which would of course cost much much more.

[Anthony Bonner]

I saw a nice Gursky today at White Cube.



They are impressive objects and worth seeing one in the flesh. The physical presence is quite important.

So, how much would you pay for that one?

Is it that you object to paying $4 million for a photo (but the same amount for a painting would be ok)?

I don't object at all. I'm not making a 99% statement. I'm just surprised that so much was paid for one very recent photo when there are lots of older revered photos available. As for paintings, in a way the photo reminds me of a Rothko which would of course cost much much more.

yeah but contemporary art markets don't compete like that. He's pricing off Hirst not Cartier-Bresson. And Gursky is like the definition of the current hotness in the "established" contemporary art world.

[hollywood]

I saw a nice Gursky today at White Cube.



They are impressive objects and worth seeing one in the flesh. The physical presence is quite important.

So, how much would you pay for that one?

Is it that you object to paying $4 million for a photo (but the same amount for a painting would be ok)?

I don't object at all. I'm not making a 99% statement. I'm just surprised that so much was paid for one very recent photo when there are lots of older revered photos available. As for paintings, in a way the photo reminds me of a Rothko which would of course cost much much more.

yeah but contemporary art markets don't compete like that. He's pricing off Hirst not Cartier-Bresson. And Gursky is like the definition of the current hotness in the "established" contemporary art world.

How much do Hirst's go for? I don't think Cindy Sherman commands that sort of pricing. I know she's different.

[Anthony Bonner]

I saw a nice Gursky today at White Cube.



They are impressive objects and worth seeing one in the flesh. The physical presence is quite important.

So, how much would you pay for that one?

Is it that you object to paying $4 million for a photo (but the same amount for a painting would be ok)?

I don't object at all. I'm not making a 99% statement. I'm just surprised that so much was paid for one very recent photo when there are lots of older revered photos available. As for paintings, in a way the photo reminds me of a Rothko which would of course cost much much more.

yeah but contemporary art markets don't compete like that. He's pricing off Hirst not Cartier-Bresson. And Gursky is like the definition of the current hotness in the "established" contemporary art world.

How much do Hirst's go for? I don't think Cindy Sherman commands that sort of pricing. I know she's different.

well, the aforementioned shark went for 12 mil.

[hollywood]

The shark of course is not a photo. Some sources said it sold for a mere $8 million.

[Anthony Bonner]

The shark of course is not a photo. Some sources said it sold for a mere $8 million.

eh, you can't say "this is a photo". I mean probably the most important piece of conceptual art is a technically a urinal.

What it actually physically is, isn't why its worth what its worth.

(although as I said before, "worth" is a relative concept in the art world given the questionable ethics of most dealers)

[hollywood]

The shark of course is not a photo. Some sources said it sold for a mere $8 million.

eh, you can't say "this is a photo". I mean probably the most important piece of conceptual art is a technically a urinal.

What it actually physically is, isn't why its worth what its worth.

(although as I said before, "worth" is a relative concept in the art world given the questionable ethics of most dealers)

what should I say? this is not a cigar?

[Anthony Bonner]

The shark of course is not a photo. Some sources said it sold for a mere $8 million.

eh, you can't say "this is a photo". I mean probably the most important piece of conceptual art is a technically a urinal.

What it actually physically is, isn't why its worth what its worth.

(although as I said before, "worth" is a relative concept in the art world given the questionable ethics of most dealers)

what should I say? this is not a cigar?

huh?

[balex]

Price in the art market has become completely divorced from any notion of aesthetic quality but that happened a while ago.

The fact is that if you are very rich it turns out to be an attractive way of spending your money to buy certain types of very expensive art.
And the reasons are some of the same reasons that people bought art in the past, whether it was english grand tourists in the 18c or American robber barons a little later.


But there is something about paying huge money for mechanically reproducible art that is surprising; I can't quit articulate why. Maybe it is some residue of naive essentialism about art , that you aren't getting the artists direct mojo splattered all over the canvas.

[hollywood]

The shark of course is not a photo. Some sources said it sold for a mere $8 million.

eh, you can't say "this is a photo". I mean probably the most important piece of conceptual art is a technically a urinal.

What it actually physically is, isn't why its worth what its worth.

(although as I said before, "worth" is a relative concept in the art world given the questionable ethics of most dealers)

what should I say? this is not a cigar?

huh?

ok, you're right.
Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

[Stone]

In some areas, art is more about the story than the actual work. The "talent" is coming up with interesting commentary on society and then attaching it to an object, which may or may not have taken some artistic ability to create.

As a silly example, I recall in the Bravo series Work of Art, one of the contestants did something like put a clump of sod on a stand, and the judges panned it. Then the artist explained about how it represented his dysfunctional relationship with his parents, and the judges loved it.

As a sadly non-silly example, I give you the Hoover and afore-mentioned toilet bowl.

[hollywood]

You want art? Really?


Jesus Christ!

[Behemoth]

But there is something about paying huge money for mechanically reproducible art that is surprising; I can't quit articulate why. Maybe it is some residue of naive essentialism about art , that you aren't getting the artists direct mojo splattered all over the canvas.

Sure, though of course there are multiple casts of Rodin sculptures and nobody would argue that those aren't worth millions. And it's not like you can go into any old darkroom and reprint a Gursky photo. Those large scale dealies need a lot of tweaking.

I live with a couple of Gurskys (not mine, lest you get the wrong impression ). After several years I still enjoy walking past them. As you mention, the scale and detail of the things really is impressive. I'm not making an argument about the market value, obviously. That has its own logic.

[balex]

But there is something about paying huge money for mechanically reproducible art that is surprising; I can't quit articulate why. Maybe it is some residue of naive essentialism about art , that you aren't getting the artists direct mojo splattered all over the canvas.

Sure, though of course there are multiple casts of Rodin sculptures and nobody would argue that those aren't worth millions. And it's not like you can go into any old darkroom and reprint a Gursky photo. Those large scale dealies need a lot of tweaking.

I live with a couple of Gurskys (not mine, lest you get the wrong impression ). After several years I still enjoy walking past them. As you mention, the scale and detail of the things really is impressive. I'm not making an argument about the market value, obviously. That has its own logic.

Yes, I was thinking about bronze casts too, and engravings and so on -- and why I don't get the same intuitions with them.
I don't think it's rational or justifiable.