Seriously.
$4.3 million for a photo
Started by hollywood, Nov 14 2011 08:48 PM
28 replies to this topic
#1
hollywood
-
- Members
-
- 21,967 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 14 November 2011 - 08:48 PM
I'd give it all up, for just a little bit more.
Monty Burns
Monty Burns
#2
balex
-
- Members
-
- 1,845 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 11:27 AM
That is a profoundly idiotic article.
#3
hollywood
-
- Members
-
- 21,967 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:03 PM
You would agree that $4.3 million is a lot for a single photo, no?
I'd give it all up, for just a little bit more.
Monty Burns
Monty Burns
#4
Stone
-
- Members
-
- 13,289 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:06 PM
Does it come with the negative?
#5
Daniel
-
- Members
-
- 7,897 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:08 PM
No frame either.
Ason, I keep planets in orbit.
#6
hollywood
-
- Members
-
- 21,967 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:12 PM
C-print mounted to plexiglass in artist's frame, 81 x 140 inches.No frame either.
I'd give it all up, for just a little bit more.
Monty Burns
Monty Burns
#7
Daniel
-
- Members
-
- 7,897 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:27 PM
I feel better..
Seriously, a product is as expensive as what someone is willing to pay for it. 4.3 million dollars on a ground breaking photo. Well, there is a lot more things people have spent their money on.
I tell Missie K all the time.. If she becomes a painter, you basically take 20 bucks worth of materials and can sell it for millions.. At least this guy probably has a little more over head with a few grand in lenses and film.
Seriously, a product is as expensive as what someone is willing to pay for it. 4.3 million dollars on a ground breaking photo. Well, there is a lot more things people have spent their money on.
I tell Missie K all the time.. If she becomes a painter, you basically take 20 bucks worth of materials and can sell it for millions.. At least this guy probably has a little more over head with a few grand in lenses and film.
Ason, I keep planets in orbit.
#8
g.johnson
-
- Members
-
- 18,877 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:40 PM
It is rather a good snap.
The Obnoxious Glyn Johnson
#9
hollywood
-
- Members
-
- 21,967 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:16 PM
Right it is, but how many other good snaps could you get for $4.3 million?It is rather a good snap.
I'd give it all up, for just a little bit more.
Monty Burns
Monty Burns
#10
balex
-
- Members
-
- 1,845 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:06 PM
You would agree that $4.3 million is a lot for a single photo, no?
Yes. That bit wasn't stupid.
#11
Stone
-
- Members
-
- 13,289 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:08 PM
Imagine what it would be worth if they'd run it through Hipstamatic!
#12
balex
-
- Members
-
- 1,845 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 16 November 2011 - 02:44 PM
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.
They are impressive objects and worth seeing one in the flesh. The physical presence is quite important.
#13
hollywood
-
- Members
-
- 21,967 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:00 PM
So, how much would you pay for that one?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.
I'd give it all up, for just a little bit more.
Monty Burns
Monty Burns
#14
Anthony Bonner
-
- Members
-
- 7,069 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:08 PM
You have to realize that lots of headline sales like this aren't real, and that even when they are real art markets don't function like real markets. If you are interested you should read "The $12 Millon Stuffed Shark"So, how much would you pay for that one?
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.
Why not mayo?
#15
balex
-
- Members
-
- 1,845 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:20 PM
So, how much would you pay for that one?
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.
Is it that you object to paying $4 million for a photo (but the same amount for a painting would be ok)?
