Worlds Most Expensive Photo ($4.3m)

It's [expleative denoting male gonads (plural)].

If you look at the guy's portfolio you can see where it's coming from and why his hard core fans (well one of them anyway) like it. But the sad truth is he might think he's made Sgt. Pepper, but really it's more like Be Here Now (bloody boring and made to a formula).
 
What bugs me most is that it's 'just' a photo. I mean if it was a painting, at least it would be unique as in only the buyer would have the original. But with a photo, what makes one copy more special than the other? Unless I'm missing somehing
 
Something about fools and money being parted spring to mind...

giraffetongue03.jpg


Now that's a photo ;)
 
Temi_D said:
What bugs me most is that it's 'just' a photo. I mean if it was a painting, at least it would be unique as in only the buyer would have the original. But with a photo, what makes one copy more special than the other? Unless I'm missing somehing
Click to expand...

In the "Fine Art Photography" world, when you release a photo, you do it as part of a limited set. No doubt the picture above will be released as just one.

We had Emily Allchurch come at talk at my local camera club a few weeks ago. She made this image:

http://www.michellerumney.com/art/wp-content/gallery/artists/tower-of-london.jpg

She spent *months* producing it. It is a mosaic made from pictures. She starts with a classic painting, in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg

Then wanders around taking pictures of buildings, finding bits of currently existing architecture that looks like some small part of the painting. She then works in photoshop piecing the whole thing together like a jigsaw.

It is amazing work.

Anyway, she released the photo in a small quantity. Five, i think and I hope that she would have sold them at a price that justified the months of work involved.

But she sold the entire set. She doesn't have one left for herself.

And she dare not print another as that would destroy her credibility in the art world.

So no, the photographer can't just print another one.

Her website is here: http://www.emilyallchurch.com/emily-allchurch.html

Andrew
 
He could have recreated the scene with that much money, and at least it would be useable as a swimming pool.
 
I'm looking at his other work and I am loving them; quite mesmerising. Also interesting to see other people trying to recreate his 99c photo.
 
Last edited:
Temi_D said:
What bugs me most is that it's 'just' a photo. I mean if it was a painting, at least it would be unique as in only the buyer would have the original. But with a photo, what makes one copy more special than the other? Unless I'm missing somehing
Click to expand...

In this case it *is* unique even as part of a series (of six) - it's 6x12ft, the largest of the series (as mentioned before) and the others are in major art museums around the world. And honestly, I think its about time that photography is starting to command prices like this. If you check The Online Photographer's recent entries on this, it's amazing to see/read how much effort Gursky puts into his photos - it isn't a simple show up, meter the scene and shoot a few 4x5s type of thing. It's worth reading the comments there too:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...grapher/2011/11/and-we-have-a-new-winner.html

There's a short documentary on him in this link:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...erywhere-you-look-theres-always-a-gursky.html
 
Right ill be honest and say its boring, unimaginative, and I don't like it.

I can see what its appeal may be to some but it just isn't for me...

I think that is about as fair as I can be...lol
 
BiGT- said:
If I had taken that pic, I probably would have deleted it :/ I've seen 100x better pictures on these forums.
Click to expand...

This 100%.

Just saw this on the BBC and my face was :eek:

Not only is it shopped, it's also not brilliant. Any chimp could take that photo. Don't even bother bringing it that 'reading between the lines' BS either, there is nothing more to this than some grass, water and sky.

It does not evoke emotion, it does not demand an answer. Face. Palm.
 
All art, at one point in its life is modern.

Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Rubens, Constable, Cezanne, Monet, Picasso, Rossetti etc., all faced criticism of their work from the established art world at the time. Granted we all now know them as works of genius - but there is a fine line between genius and madness.

If you look at some works by Constable, they're amazingly modern. One, entitled "Seascape study with cloud" would make you stop and say "wtf" - it looks like a child has scrubbed his paintbrush across the canvas - yet it is worth a small fortune. It isn't worth that in paint or canvas or age really since there are older artworks out there, its worth it due to the person who created it.

Photography is a 'relatively' new medium to work in for anyone interested in Art - it sometimes has a lot of problems being accepted as "art" since in many artists eyes it is just a case of pressing a button to make a picture.

It is more than that though - composition, using the available light, timing, subject are all captured by the camera. If you have used film, the type can make a difference - Black and White, Slide film, Colour Film or even Polaroid. Then you have the developing of the film or alteration of the shot if Digital and finally the print stage, even the type of paper you print on makes a difference. Each and every one of these things results in a unique image.

Now it might take you 10 minutes to output a shot, or it might take you a few hours as you work on it then print it. So what is it worth? To a parent a photograph of their new born baby is priceless. If it isn't my baby its just another shot of a baby, it might make me go "awww" but thats about it. Worthless to me. Worth is open to interpretation.

Now the Gursky photograph. He has taken the time to come up with something unusual. Sure some people probably took similar pictures, but he has made it his own style. If anyone else took a shot like that, it would be referred to as being in the 'Gursky' style or 'Gurskyesque". At the point that epithet came into being, Gurksy's work became valuable.

The same goes for moody black and white photographys of American Landscapes - Ansel Adams, or how about Candid Street shots - Henri Carter-Bresson? We now compare candid shots and landscapes with these photographers, but people were and in fact sometimes still are, very critical of their work. Again it is all down to taste. Do you like it? What is it? Does it work?

There are billions of pictures out there - including the ones on these forums - yep they're technically very good - sharp, well exposed, punchy colour, great action shots, lovely wedding photos, amazing macros - but they aren't iconic - they're the same as all the other shots out of a similar nature and that is why they'll never command six figure sums.

If photographers call photographic work crap then what hope is there for the medium to be accepted as 'art' by the mainstream?

Oh, one last thing - take a look at this vast list of Photographers - might broaden the mind a little :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photographers
 
Last edited:
well put Andy90, from my experience most art falls into 2 catagories. The first being work that however you look at it it is truly amazing because of the skill it took to make it. The second catagory is work that divides opinion with some people thinking its a pile of poo and others intrigued and captivated. What makes something stand out as art is that it does leave you wondering why it was made. For me this picture falls into the latter catagory and im struggling to get past the pile of poo stage
 
It's better than the previous record holder!

Also, I quite like it. And remember the guy is famous and the majority of the value is in the photographer; if I or anyone else here took that photo it would be worth jack.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom