Wow!
This week, auction house Christie’s sold the above photo by Andreas Gursky for $4.3 million, setting the record for all-time most expensive photo (the previous record was set by Cindy Sherman’s “Untitled #96,” which sold for $3.89 million). For many starving photographers in the 99%, this may be similar to seeing heads of the big banks getting giant bonuses while the rest of the economy suffers. But from van Gogh to Pollock, the “value” of art has always been in the eye of the beholder. Those unfamiliar with Gursky may be wondering: What’s so special about a picture of a river and some grass? What elevates that photo above so many others? And how did the price get so astronomically high? Well, for one thing, it’s not uncommon for a Gursky to sell for millions of dollars. His piece 99 Cnet II Diptychon at right also broke records when it was auctioned off for $3.3 million.
4 comments:
P.T. Barnum got it right.
I've been long wondering if the whole modern art thing, like this photo, wasn't just some high-end money laundering or con game type thing.
Nothing else really makes sense to me.
For a fraction of that you could have gone there with a very expensive camera and taken your own picture.
That's just nuts. Out of years of taking photos of pretty much everything and anything (including the dead cow by the side of the road coming home one day); I've got a total of about 4 or 5 really good photos. I'd rather pay for a painting than a picture.. because if *I* can take a good picture, anyone can - but not everyone can paint well. I guess art is its own end, and how you value your dollars compared to how you value what you want to buy is true.
Post a Comment