Jump to content


Photo

$4.3 million for a photo


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#16 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,856 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 06:20 PM



I saw a nice Gursky today at White Cube.

Posted Image

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.

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#17 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,929 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 06:48 PM




I saw a nice Gursky today at White Cube.

Posted Image

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.
Why not mayo?

#18 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,856 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:47 PM





I saw a nice Gursky today at White Cube.

Posted Image

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.

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#19 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,929 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:54 PM






I saw a nice Gursky today at White Cube.

Posted Image

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.
Why not mayo?

#20 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,856 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:02 PM

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

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#21 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,929 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:08 PM

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)
Why not mayo?

#22 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,856 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:14 PM


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?

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#23 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,929 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:18 PM



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?
Why not mayo?

#24 balex

balex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,314 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:10 PM

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.

#25 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,856 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:23 PM




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.

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#26 Stone

Stone

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,908 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:26 PM

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.

And she was.


#27 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,856 posts

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:34 PM

You want art? Really?


Jesus Christ!

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#28 Behemoth

Behemoth

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,832 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 11:25 AM

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.
Summarizing, then, we assume that relational information is not subject to a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.
-Chomskybot

#29 balex

balex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,314 posts

Posted 17 November 2011 - 11:54 AM


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.