"art" gone mad : $4.3million photo!!

Andreas Gursky’s “Rhein II” sold for $4.3 million...

what a load of shit.

I think it'd be worth more if it was taken upside down.

That's a lot of money. I think his pictures are quite nice though, but that's just ridiculous. Here's a better version of the image in question: http://img1.focus-numerique.com/focus/news/2/2914/Rhein-II.jpg.

I think it's beautiful. Totally worth the 4.3M US dolla

It has great texture, but it's nothing an amateur photographer with 20 minutes couldn't achieve.

I don't know, it does have something in there. Of course not worth more than a few thousand of dollars if we should set prices.

Actually I might make it my desktop for a while and see how it works in the long run

I prefer this, but it's quite maddening.

$4.3 million ?! Pfff, I'd pay $3.7 million -tops.

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:55 AM, Gocab said:

Here's a bigger version of the image...

fixed

Establishment artist in "creating luxury goods for the super-rich" shocker

at least u can get the jpeg free

  On 11/11/2011 at 12:12 PM, keltoi said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:55 AM, Gocab said:

Here's a bigger version of the image...

 

fixed

Ok... the small version looks like a smudgy photoshop, there's no detail left in it.

  On 11/11/2011 at 12:24 PM, Gocab said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 12:12 PM, keltoi said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:55 AM, Gocab said:

Here's a bigger version of the image...

 

fixed

Ok... the small version looks like a smudgy photoshop, there's no detail left in it.

i know i was jus' messin'... the image sucks whatever the quality.

i might pay a million for a big burtinsky. thats about it...

i can't help but think i am missing something.

I bet whoever bought it could barely afford it. They just wanted it so badly because it's so fucking good.

Clearly the price is so inflated because the photograph was created using all analog components.

If it were a digital image it wouldn't fetch nearly so much.

I made a calculation. As it looks I'll earn in my whole life from 200 000-500 000€. That's like one tenth of this photo or even less. So all my fucking work I'll ever do in my whole damn life is worth a tenth of a photo? That photo should be the world president or should open a portal to a planet full of awesome things to be worth that much. Just sayin'.

  On 11/11/2011 at 5:36 PM, gaarg said:

I made a calculation. As it looks I'll earn in my whole life from 200 000-500 000€. That's like one tenth of this photo or even less. So all my fucking work I'll ever do in my whole damn life is worth a tenth of a photo? That photo should be the world president or should open a portal to a planet full of awesome things to be worth that much. Just sayin'.

Ergo companies should just hire pictures of rivers & get just as much work done with one tenth the staff.

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:49 AM, keltoi said:

Andreas Gursky’s “Rhein II” sold for $4.3 million...

 

 

what a load of shit.

this is a fantastic photograph.

but people only buy these things as an investment anyway. you can bet whoever paid $4.3 million for it has been advised it will be worth $10 million in 5 years or whatever. it's just a commodity.

i really like it but i have no idea why. can someone analyze it and make some sense of it? :p

also the grocery store shelves are awesome, trying to figure out where each shelf is and how its related to the other ones

it might not be worth this price, but this photograph is quite amazing really. there is a lot more than meets the eye. somehow it has a trivial composition, but very balanced, and its length makes me imagine that it might be a succession of highly textured strips, which create a very strong contrast with the textureless sky, that extend infinitely in both sides. the most striking aspect for me is the river (is it really?) which looks like a huge carpet, rather than a tank of water. it is also very interesting how it looks like it was taken with a common, cheap digital camera. which gives a mysterious feeling to it.

To me there is an interesting feeling of succession in the grey bands, with the dinky little man-made path followed by the significantly wider natural "path" of the river, followed by the intergalactic path of the sky which takes up almost half the photo. I'm not sure if the width of the green bands have any significance in this regard.

  On 11/11/2011 at 6:34 PM, Cryptowen said:

To me there is an interesting feeling of succession in the grey bands, with the dinky little man-made path followed by the significantly wider natural "path" of the river, followed by the intergalactic path of the sky which takes up almost half the photo. I'm not sure if the width of the green bands have any significance in this regard.

indeed, there is quite a growing order to the bands, starting with the man made earth pathway, which is the smallest percentage on the planet, as well as in the photograph, compared to water, which is 2/3 of it and finally the sky, which is infinite, at least from our point of view down here

edti: this gives quite a depth to the image, if we think of the composition this way

    Quote

Gursky's Dance Valley festival photograph, taken near Amsterdam in 1995, depicts attendees facing a DJ stand in a large arena, beneath strobe lighting effects. The pouring smoke resembles a human hand, holding the crowd in stasis. After completing the print, Gursky explained the ONLY music he now listens to is the anonymous, beat-heavy style known as Trance, as its symmetry and simplicity echoes his own work—while playing towards a deeper, more visceral emotion.