Camera Craniums

General Category => General Photography => Topic started by: nickt on November 11, 2011, 05:18:47 PM

Title: 4.3million dollars for this
Post by: nickt on November 11, 2011, 05:18:47 PM
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/photos/6/613bbff0-2a05-4650-ba9c-930a29fa1a10.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: irv_b on November 11, 2011, 06:28:58 PM
Your not alone with that thought Nick!
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: Oldboy on November 11, 2011, 06:36:47 PM
Think I might have deleted that from my card before I got home!  :doh:
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: nickt on November 11, 2011, 10:41:57 PM
If you look at some of the photos by Joe Cornish, David Noton et al, you wonder what's going on in the art world. Because this photographer has a 'name', the photo's worth a lot of money. It's just pretentious crap.
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: skellum on November 11, 2011, 11:16:59 PM
I have two choices here. Either I get straight down to our local River Ribble in the morning ( no need to take all my gear as I am only looking to take a snap so I could use my phone ).
Or I could agree with you and and all the other sane people out there.

There are and always will be some very rich but stupid and gullible people out there.   :knuppel2:
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: stevebedder on November 12, 2011, 09:33:24 AM
£4.3 million?? Seriously??

......bit confusing that one

 :doh:

Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: Jonathan on November 12, 2011, 10:03:07 AM
We all know who Andreas Gursky is, right?

A doodle by a child and a doodle by Davinci may look very similar - but one has resale value and the other doesn't. Tha gallery just created the value for this picture and could sell it tomorrow for the money they paid.  Or in 5 years for more.  Or after Gursky dies for a lot more.
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: krennon on November 12, 2011, 10:30:17 AM
wonder how much my Old Groynes shot is worth??? mm sell print fake death sell "undiscovered" print for squillions....
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: Simple on November 12, 2011, 11:40:08 AM
What's in a name?
4.3 million dollars apparently :D
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: greypoint on November 12, 2011, 12:55:36 PM
We all know who Andreas Gursky is, right?

he would appear to be someone who produces very large prints......sort of like a billboard advert I suppose....another gap in my knowledge plugged  ::)
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: Jonathan on November 12, 2011, 02:09:45 PM
Um yeah.  So all of these pictures are worthless because I have a can of red paint in the shed.

http://structureandimagery.blogspot.com/2011/10/rothko-red.html
Title: Re: 4.3million dollars for this
Post by: greypoint on November 12, 2011, 02:58:36 PM
Well....obviously something is 'worth' what someone else will pay for it. The art world discover a new genius and their work rockets in price. Most of us who are not part of the art world shake our heads in disbelief - but we are philistines who don't get it - twas ever thus... Van Gogh etc.etc..  I like the Rothkos a lot as a concept just not sure if they're something I'd pay millions for....supposing i had millions  :-\
Title: Re: 4.3million dollars for this
Post by: Graham on November 12, 2011, 03:37:37 PM
  Well. Disregarding what someone paid for it which surely is just an irrellevant aside. As a pic I quite like it, and I'm sure I'd like it a whole lot more If I could see a really good print  8 feet wide.
             Graham.  :legit:
Title: Re: 4.3million dollers for this
Post by: Graham on November 12, 2011, 03:42:19 PM
Um yeah.  So all of these pictures are worthless because I have a can of red paint in the shed.

http://structureandimagery.blogspot.com/2011/10/rothko-red.html

   If no one will pay for them , then yes, they'er worthless (Financially).



  And I don't believe you have a tin of red paint in the shed.............Thinking about, I'm not even sure you've got a shed!
                       Graham. :)
Title: Re: 4.3million dollars for this
Post by: Jonathan on November 12, 2011, 06:17:49 PM
If you haven't heard/seen it already then check out this story - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/entertainment-arts-13785393

Short version: there's a painting which 99+% of the artworld reckons is a Monet.  2 brothers reckon it isn't.  If they agreed it was, it would be worth (literally) millions - as it is the owner paid £40,000 and most people reckon that's too much.

So....almost nobody on earth can tell that it's not a Monet.  But it's worth a small fraction of what a Monet would be.

Yes, it matters that this picture was taken by Gursky.  In the same way it matters whether it was Rothko who sloshed the red paint around.

There was a program ages ago about how "experts" and in particular the Saatchi gallery set the price for art.  They decide Damien Hirst's shartk is worth £50,000 - and all of a sudden it is.  3 days ago, Gursky had only taken the 3rd most expensive photograph ever.  Now he's number 1.  And I bet the price of his next print of 99 cent II Diptychon has just gone up too.

Oh and I have a shed.  2 actually.  And one of them's huge.
Title: Re: 4.3million dollars for this
Post by: Oldboy on November 12, 2011, 07:55:52 PM

Oh and I have a shed.  2 actually.  And one of them's huge.

Now that's just showing off!  :P
Title: Re: 4.3million dollars for this
Post by: anglefire on November 13, 2011, 11:40:10 AM
It's like everything, it's only worth what someone else is prepared to pay. Me, I wouldn't give it, or the red splotches house room, so to me they are worthless.

Unless I owned them, in which case they are not :)