Forgot your password?
Or sign in with one of these services
Kevster, November 11, 2011 in The Galley: General Chat
you got it
There's nothing like a wildlife photographer scorned, is there?
There are two ideas here, one of which I don't agree with. The price paid for art is ridiculous, and is about exclusivity and conspicuous consumption, waving the new owners' secondary sexual organs (their bank account, I guess) in an orgiastic display of triumphalism. Art, however, can't be narrowly defined and, like it or not, concept, minimalism, formalism and physical impact are now just as much a part of art as is technical expertise. An image doesn't cease to be art just because it doesn't appeal to some of the viewers: after all, I can't abide Rubens...
I couldn't agree more with you Tim, my wife worked at the contemporary Art Gallery in Montreal for quite a few years, and I have seen my share of "contemporary" work that needed an instruction manual to grasp the artist vision, on the other hand, I also saw a generous amount of artwork, some that was simplicity and beauty itself with no need for an accompanying volume in order to appreciate them. The question is, what happen if you lose the “instruction” manifest, does the art piece become worthless? When you invest in and art piece, are you getting artwork or a vision of the artist, can it stand alone and make its own statement, will the work resist the test of time? Will it be pertinent to a next generation of viewer? one that might not know the context it was taken in.
My problem with this piece is not so much the price paid, heck I surely wouldn’t complain if I sold anything remotely close to these prices, but I do have issue with the fact that someone need to be explained why it’s a “great” photograph, it’s a piece of art, it should not require explanation! When I see this kind of art, it insults me, it is the same as if they are telling me, sorry Jean, but you are too intellectually challenged (read dumb ) to figure it out by yourself, let me explain it to you…
Art for me is simple, you get it or you not, no need for explanation.
Well, I've read a lot on the web about this picture, but no matter how carefully I've looked at it and tried to make something of it, at the end of the day it still seems to me that its garbage. Its a shot which, if I had taken it, would probably spend its entire life as code on a hard drive until it finally got deleted. I'm not sure that I'd have even bothered opening it - viewing it in the finder would probably be more than enough to make me wonder why I'd bothered. The 'high art world' is incredibly pretentious IMHO and 4.3 Million could have far better uses.....
The 'high art world' is incredibly pretentious IMHO and 4.3 Million could have far better uses.....
I dated a girl once whos family owned a couple of art galleries ... Her 'Nob' brother asked what i did for a living and I said "I'm a painter" he said "what ,landscapes or portraits?" i said "no! walls and ceilings" well the parents thought it was amusing ... He didn't the pretentious git ... They are everywhere
Beyond all the publicity, this sale will certainly set some kind of precedence for the valuation for the rest of his images.
This could end up being a huge, huge windfall for him and propel him and his work to an even higher level.
Seems like most people on here are trying to value the image based on the image, but art collectors don't just buy pieces or art, they buy names and stories.
Shoot, maybe Gurksy bought it. Maybe, in the long term, it's worth it.
Or maybe Christie's is just rich people Ebay and someone got caught up in the bidding frenzy.
Either way, it's an interesting story.