It reminds me of a program I saw on the TV. It was an auction of contemporary art. The one that surprised me was of a plain white background with a black brush stroke of no particular meaning, it sold for 80, 000,000 that's eighty million dollars. I'm not sure what is happening to the world but as I get older the more insane it appears to get. I could produce the same thing for ten pounds, canvas included but I would blush at the thought of calling it art.
Very good analysis here. Audience is crucial. I sometimes take on gigs to photograph weddings & events. I posted a few samples on FB photo groups and received the worst feedback, some of which was downright hateful. But my clients absolutely loved these pix.
I don't think it's worth the money that it was sold for (I'm convinced the art market is mostly just money laundering, anyhow), but I actually kinda like the photo even without the cockamamie backstory. It's boring, yes, but it's so boring it's really in your face about it and even aggressive in its boringness. It's aggressively peaceful, and I appreciate it. It's the kind of thing that would look good in a large format hanging on a wall you don't spend much time looking at. That said, this is really only the type of thing you can get away with once you've already reached a certain status. Mr. Gursky could not have produced this early in his career and received any acclaim at all, my tastes notwithstanding.
What did I think when I first saw it? Well I loved it, I thought it was very beautiful and very clever, like much of his work but you'll never understand it if you don't see it in the flesh, full sized on the gallery wall. It's no good just looking at it on your phone or even a PC. As to the value, yes, that is somewhat inflated but born out of his reputation, the very short print run, I think it's an edition of around seven copies, and the bill board size of the prints. And yes, this whole commercial aspect of the work can be used to dismiss it without thought, but that's just a diversionary tactic to avoid actually talking about the image.
In other words, what you’re saying is, the skill is in the art of finding the one fool with far, far more money than sense, the actual content of the photograph doesn’t matter in the slightest. There only needs to be one - he’s not going to be selling prints. It makes even less sense than selling paintings for millions of dollars because the exclusivity and notion of ownership of originality is far more tenuous with a photo than with a painting.
Finding an audience is important but I'm definitely not saying the content of the photo doesn't matter in the slightest. You would hope a considered, well made photo put in front of the right audience, is going to fair much better than a thoughtless snapshot. Although Rhein II doesn't have much visual content, it is certainly loaded with symbolism & rhetoric, which, although are not used very much by the hobbyist photographer, hold a lot of sway in certain circles. I believe only 6 prints were made from the original negative. Of course in a digital world, reproduction is always going to make it hard to limit the editions of a photograph, which is why provenance becomes so important.
@@yorkshirephotowalks i think, for me, certainly with a painting, if I look at it and my first thought is “ _I_ could have done that”, then that is not good art. That was my first thought with this photo.
Come on. This 'German photographer' is a member of an established apparatus which 'invests' in such big images with a negatively provocative content in order to put them on display in a well known gallery, while another part of the apparatus hypes the image in the press, not missing the segment of bored rich investors. By claiming a primary sale and 'greatness', the image takes shape of a good investment. The apparatus then wait for an idiot to turn up to be the new anonymous owner, probably having a small rebate to boost his ego. The first 'buyer', the gallery, and the photographer then share the real money. It's The Emperor's New Clothes repeated in a modern frame. Some are very good at such fraud, and fools are everywhere. The internet will inform you like this: 'The print was originally acquired by the Galerie Monika Sprüth in Cologne, and subsequently bought by an anonymous German collector.'
Exactly. Most successful artists do not sell art, they sell a story. And that requires a marketing team in the form of complicit "art critics" and gallery owners. There are a few great artists whose work stands out even to those not knowledgeable about art, but a great many of the so called "greats" is mostly hype. Banksy is a bit of an odd one out. His art doesn't usually really stand out... but he kind of made his story into an art unto itself. A performance artist without a performance.
This is a nothing photo. Until i saw it is 3 1/2 meters wide, Then i could see myself standing in front of it and appreciating its meaning. Sometimes size matters
You just convinced me to photograph for myself instead of trying to impress audience.
That photograph is definite proof that you don't need talent, just good connections will suffice.
It reminds me of a program I saw on the TV. It was an auction of contemporary art. The one that surprised me was of a plain white background with a black brush stroke of no particular meaning, it sold for 80, 000,000 that's eighty million dollars. I'm not sure what is happening to the world but as I get older the more insane it appears to get. I could produce the same thing for ten pounds, canvas included but I would blush at the thought of calling it art.
Very good analysis here. Audience is crucial. I sometimes take on gigs to photograph weddings & events. I posted a few samples on FB photo groups and received the worst feedback, some of which was downright hateful. But my clients absolutely loved these pix.
I don't think it's worth the money that it was sold for (I'm convinced the art market is mostly just money laundering, anyhow), but I actually kinda like the photo even without the cockamamie backstory. It's boring, yes, but it's so boring it's really in your face about it and even aggressive in its boringness. It's aggressively peaceful, and I appreciate it. It's the kind of thing that would look good in a large format hanging on a wall you don't spend much time looking at. That said, this is really only the type of thing you can get away with once you've already reached a certain status. Mr. Gursky could not have produced this early in his career and received any acclaim at all, my tastes notwithstanding.
An interesting take. It makes sense about the audience for a work determining what will make that work successful, however you define success.
Emperors New Clothes? The moral of the story is to not show your photos to other photographers!
What did I think when I first saw it? Well I loved it, I thought it was very beautiful and very clever, like much of his work but you'll never understand it if you don't see it in the flesh, full sized on the gallery wall. It's no good just looking at it on your phone or even a PC. As to the value, yes, that is somewhat inflated but born out of his reputation, the very short print run, I think it's an edition of around seven copies, and the bill board size of the prints. And yes, this whole commercial aspect of the work can be used to dismiss it without thought, but that's just a diversionary tactic to avoid actually talking about the image.
In other words, what you’re saying is, the skill is in the art of finding the one fool with far, far more money than sense, the actual content of the photograph doesn’t matter in the slightest. There only needs to be one - he’s not going to be selling prints.
It makes even less sense than selling paintings for millions of dollars because the exclusivity and notion of ownership of originality is far more tenuous with a photo than with a painting.
Finding an audience is important but I'm definitely not saying the content of the photo doesn't matter in the slightest. You would hope a considered, well made photo put in front of the right audience, is going to fair much better than a thoughtless snapshot. Although Rhein II doesn't have much visual content, it is certainly loaded with symbolism & rhetoric, which, although are not used very much by the hobbyist photographer, hold a lot of sway in certain circles.
I believe only 6 prints were made from the original negative. Of course in a digital world, reproduction is always going to make it hard to limit the editions of a photograph, which is why provenance becomes so important.
@@yorkshirephotowalks i think, for me, certainly with a painting, if I look at it and my first thought is “ _I_ could have done that”, then that is not good art. That was my first thought with this photo.
It's also rather a large print (over 3.5 metres wide!). I wonder where he got it printed?
Taking away human impact *leaves canal and sidewalk
Come on. This 'German photographer' is a member of an established apparatus which 'invests' in such big images with a negatively provocative content in order to put them on display in a well known gallery, while another part of the apparatus hypes the image in the press, not missing the segment of bored rich investors. By claiming a primary sale and 'greatness', the image takes shape of a good investment. The apparatus then wait for an idiot to turn up to be the new anonymous owner, probably having a small rebate to boost his ego. The first 'buyer', the gallery, and the photographer then share the real money. It's The Emperor's New Clothes repeated in a modern frame. Some are very good at such fraud, and fools are everywhere. The internet will inform you like this: 'The print was originally acquired by the Galerie Monika Sprüth in Cologne, and subsequently bought by an anonymous German collector.'
This nails it!
Exactly. Most successful artists do not sell art, they sell a story. And that requires a marketing team in the form of complicit "art critics" and gallery owners.
There are a few great artists whose work stands out even to those not knowledgeable about art, but a great many of the so called "greats" is mostly hype.
Banksy is a bit of an odd one out. His art doesn't usually really stand out... but he kind of made his story into an art unto itself. A performance artist without a performance.
This is a nothing photo. Until i saw it is 3 1/2 meters wide, Then i could see myself standing in front of it and appreciating its meaning. Sometimes size matters
It's worth 4,3 mln, but not for me.
All I can say is a fool and his money are easily parted, as my hero David Bailey said there are no rules and I believe he got that from Picasso
yours*