4.3million dollars for this

[nickt]

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

[irv_b]

Your not alone with that thought Nick!

[Oldboy]

Think I might have deleted that from my card before I got home! 

[nickt]

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.

[skellum]

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.   

[stevebedder]

£4.3 million?? Seriously??

......bit confusing that one

[Jonathan]

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.

[krennon]

wonder how much my Old Groynes shot is worth??? mm sell print fake death sell "undiscovered" print for squillions....

[Simple]

What's in a name?
4.3 million dollars apparently

[greypoint]

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 

[Jonathan]

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

[greypoint]

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 

[Graham]

  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. 

[Graham]

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.

[Jonathan]

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.