Worlds Most Expensive Photo ($4.3m)

it DOES make you do a double take.

Then you think...meh, i am bored already.

But then i find myself still looking at it...

But it doesn't mean i like it though lol
 
When you buy a photo, do you buy the rights to it or what? If I print that image onto a bit of photp paper, is it suddenly worth a few million?
 
Defcon5 said:
When you buy a photo, do you buy the rights to it or what? If I print that image onto a bit of photp paper, is it suddenly worth a few million?
Click to expand...

You won't own the rights unless it specifically states so. So it is a bit risky for the the buyer if the photographer or copyright holder suddenly decides to trade in the fame of the image and start printing posters of it and selling it online for £3.99.

However, that said, if the photographer did that, his reputation would be ruined anyway.
 
Only a very sad person would want to buy that picture! Then again, there are lots of differently weird forms of 'art' that people are more than willing to spend money on!
 
Gursky is amazing. That isn't his best photo, but part of its value is that he took it (the curator for photography at MoMA ranks him above Damien Hirst for example) and that it's the largest version of it (out of six).
 
GTRacer said:
Gursky is amazing. That isn't his best photo, but part of its value is that he took it (the curator for photography at MoMA ranks him above Damien Hirst for example) and that it's the largest version of it (out of six).
Click to expand...

He has made some incredible images, but this is money for a name, little more. That said I quite like the photo :) Though his previous most expensive print ever 99 Cent II Diptychon is IMO a far more interesting image.
 
I quite like the shot, it is very minimal, but it is photoshopped. The thing is, is it art? Is it worth £2.7 million? More importantly how does someone get to the stage where the photographs they take are worth this amount of money?

I definately do think it is art, it makes you stop and stare at it. I could see it on my wall and it has an odd look to it, most Landscapes aren't this flat so it is unusual.

Is it worth 2.7 million? Well it is an obscene amount of money I'll grant that. It is certainly disproportionate compared to say an old master painting that might be 400 years old and taken a few years to paint, but compared to piles of bricks or an unmade bed which seemingly go for similar amounts of money, I would take the Gursky photograph any day.

I suspect Gursky wasn't the first to come up with this type of photograph, but popularised it by coming up with similar shots time and time again, indeed his work with Photographs is reminiscent of the Paintings of Mark Rothko some years earlier, which had similar horizontal slabs of pure colour. I suspect with his photographs hitting the galleries and then getting the exposure via the media he's hit the big time.

I know most people could come up with a shot like this but quite clearly if you come up with a style, repeat it, get the exposure then your photographs might be worth a few million and I suppose that is what seperates us from him.
 
GTRacer said:
Gursky is amazing. That isn't his best photo, but part of its value is that he took it (the curator for photography at MoMA ranks him above Damien Hirst for example) and that it's the largest version of it (out of six).
Click to expand...

Indeed, he has some great shots. I could probably pick 50 that I prefer to this one though.
 
simulatorman said:
I’ll be brutally honest, it’s arty farty rubbish.
Click to expand...

so true
you could take the same pic and they would say its worth nothing
it like those guys that just but a pile of bricks in a art gallery and someone thats thinks they know better calls it art, but if i did it that same person would say its just a pile of bricks
 
I reckon its worth so much because it has some story behind it that the rich owner can lecture his guests about when they come for his 8 course dinners :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom