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

yeah can we all agree that the photo is amazing - not worth THAT much tho.

gursky did make some pretty idm photos

he seems to study how the composition will end up to exhaustion. his images, altought they are photographs of real scenes, end up looking like textures

edit: but i guess it has been done before.

jesus christ triachus, how big is that 1st image. i feel like i'm in 1995.

this water picture is p*ssing me of. its just wrong no matter if it was only $1 cost. the other ones are ok plus he listens trance so hes ok

  On 11/11/2011 at 7:59 PM, jules said:

lol

it's very nice. it's almost rothko-esque.

  On 11/11/2011 at 7:44 PM, dr lopez said:

yeah can we all agree that the photo is amazing - not worth THAT much tho.

Maybe in some ways, but if I was a wealthy investor I'd probably be dropping mils on all sorts of art stuff if I had reason to believe it was going to be worth more a few years down the line.

no photograph, no matter how great, is worth 4.3 million dollars. this photo is nice but that is completely unrelated to the fact that no photo is worth 4.3 million dollars.

I see the merits of the picture... minimalist, colour, texture. and proportions. It's the money that's rediculous.

Speaking of ridiculous amounts:

http://www.jimcarreytrulife.com/video-post/picassooooo-out-of-my-league

wtf where did the bigger version go.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/files/0dc50e8548d51d19fe0e6a706700f3b1_0.jpg

hugest 4000 pixel version

thanks my plan is almost completion

You know what's a bad investment? Human trafficking.

You buy some 16 year old beauty from Hungary and she starts losing value the instant you get her home. in fact, a couple years down the line you will have to dispose of her and you can't even write off the loss.

  On 11/11/2011 at 7:59 PM, jules said:

lol

also, im pretty sure I can see a dog turd halfway up the second band of grass on the left below the orange thing (viewed on big size)

  On 11/11/2011 at 8:06 PM, luke viia said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 7:59 PM, jules said:

 

lol

lol

  On 11/11/2011 at 10:10 PM, coax said:

Speaking of ridiculous amounts:

 

http://www.jimcarrey...ut-of-my-league

That was awesome

  On 11/11/2011 at 12:52 PM, spratters said:

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

I agree.

  On 11/11/2011 at 7:59 PM, jules said:

hah. Finally that image is worth something, a chuckle from me. ;-]

  On 11/11/2011 at 7:27 PM, ruiagnelo said:

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.

I disagree. I don't think he tried that hard with the composition of any of his works. He just took a lot of photos based on a theme and threw out the ones that didn't work. By analysing the imagery you are finding in the details in the image and the through the process of analysis itself, bogus justifications for your idea.

And sure he would probably have said any old bullshit about the picture to help sell it. "Sure i went and done that stuff, it waz pretty hard like. doy herr durr"

I agree with keltoi, the picture is shit. But i think given that it is bland and featureless, some minds fill that void with non existent data. Then the price and prestige associated with the image, ensure that the information overlayed is more on the positive side of the ledger.

whether you like the picture or not, and think the price is justified or not, it's fun to see that most people think they know what this picture deals with. i personnally like it in terms of aesthetics but i won't pretend i know what it's about and what's going on around it. it's not like we average people are supposed to understand what this whole thing means.

delet: master critic.

  On 11/12/2011 at 12:17 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

whether you like the picture or not, and think the price is justified or not, it's fun to see that most people think they know what this picture deals with. i personnally like it in terms of aesthetics but i won't pretend i know what it's about and what's going on around it. it's not like we average people are supposed to understand what this whole thing means.

those thinking they know what this picture deals with, including myself, just happen to be people searching for a meaning in art works, which isn't necessarilly a meaning valid to everyone or even a forced meaning, and isn't a demonstration of some kind of attitude, but a natural behaviour, if you ask me.

if you aren't brave enough to come up with an interpreation for something, even being the most stupid idea ever thought, then you don't really understand why you are living and how useful you are. just like aesthetics. you can't just appreciate the aesthetics as aesthetics, and if you do so, then you understood nothing about it, because there is a value beyond the superficial side. the same thing happens with music. the aesthetics of a musical piece are the result of an intention and an idea.

don't be afraid of coming up with your own interpretations. if you stick with the aesthetics, then you are being pretentious.

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:56 PM, delet... said:

  On 11/11/2011 at 7:27 PM, ruiagnelo said:

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.

 

I disagree. I don't think he tried that hard with the composition of any of his works. He just took a lot of photos based on a theme and threw out the ones that didn't work. By analysing the imagery you are finding in the details in the image and the through the process of analysis itself, bogus justifications for your idea.

 

And sure he would probably have said any old bullshit about the picture to help sell it. "Sure i went and done that stuff, it waz pretty hard like. doy herr durr"

 

I agree with keltoi, the picture is shit. But i think given that it is bland and featureless, some minds fill that void with non existent data. Then the price and prestige associated with the image, ensure that the information overlayed is more on the positive side of the ledger.

your arguments are as rich as this sentence: the picture is shit

  On 11/11/2011 at 11:56 PM, delet... said:

I agree with keltoi, the picture is shit. But i think given that it is bland and featureless, some minds fill that void with non existent data. Then the price and prestige associated with the image, ensure that the information overlayed is more on the positive side of the ledger.

My personal stance on art is that personal interpretation is just as important as whatever the original creator thought while making it. That's why people can be moved by recordings of birds & stuff.