Boring Photograph Sells For 4.3 Million $$$
DarqueKnight
Posts: 6,765
An image of the Rhine river by German artist Andreas Gursky was sold at auction on November 6, 2011 for $4,338,500 at Christie's New York, setting an auction record for a photograph.
The glass-mounted panoramic color print "Rhein II", created in 1999, is one of an edition of six works.
Others hang at New York's Museum of Modern Art and London's Tate Modern.
It beat the previous record of $3.9m achieved by an untitled 1981 color print by Cindy Sherman works.
Source: Washington Post article, 11/14/2011
I have a high appreatiation for art and I am an avid photographer. I understand that rare photographs, particularly those of famous people or of once-in-a-lifetime moments or events, can rightfully command a premium price. However, when I see things like this, I have to wonder if they are just scams for laundering drug money. I mean, rather than paying $4.3 for this picture, someone could buy or rent the same equipment, go to (or hire a photographer to go to) the same location at the river, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year and essentially capture the same image. I must be missing something here.
Such Good Photography!
The glass-mounted panoramic color print "Rhein II", created in 1999, is one of an edition of six works.
Others hang at New York's Museum of Modern Art and London's Tate Modern.
It beat the previous record of $3.9m achieved by an untitled 1981 color print by Cindy Sherman works.
Source: Washington Post article, 11/14/2011
I have a high appreatiation for art and I am an avid photographer. I understand that rare photographs, particularly those of famous people or of once-in-a-lifetime moments or events, can rightfully command a premium price. However, when I see things like this, I have to wonder if they are just scams for laundering drug money. I mean, rather than paying $4.3 for this picture, someone could buy or rent the same equipment, go to (or hire a photographer to go to) the same location at the river, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year and essentially capture the same image. I must be missing something here.
Such Good Photography!
Andreas Gursky's "Rhine II" (141" x 81" photographic print).
Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
Post edited by DarqueKnight on
Comments
-
Yeah this was posted a few weeks back - still amazes me how stupid rich people can be lol- Not Tom ::::::: Any system can play Diana Krall. Only the best can play Limp Bizkit.
-
It's not that stupid if they are laundering drug money.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
-
If you squint slightly and let your eyes go crossed you can see a 3D picture of Jesus eating a grilled cheeze sandwich.SDA-1C (full mods)
Carver TFM-55
NAD 1130 Pre-amp
Rega Planar 3 TT/Shelter 501 MkII
The Clamp
Revox A77 Mk IV Dolby reel to reel
Thorens TD160/Mission 774 arm/Stanton 881S Shibata
Nakamichi CR7 Cassette Deck
Rotel RCD-855 with modified tube output stage
Cambridge Audio DACmagic Plus
ADC Soundshaper 3 EQ
Ben's IC's
Nitty Gritty 1.5FI RCM -
DarqueKnight wrote: »An image of the Rhine river by German artist Andreas Gursky was sold at auction on November 6, 2011 for $4,338,500 at Christie's New York, setting an auction record for a photograph.
The glass-mounted panoramic color print "Rhein II", created in 1999, is one of an edition of six works.
Others hang at New York's Museum of Modern Art and London's Tate Modern.
It beat the previous record of $3.9m achieved by an untitled 1981 color print by Cindy Sherman works.
Source: Washington Post article, 11/14/2011
I have a high appreatiation for art and I am an avid photographer. I understand that rare photographs, particularly those of famous people or of once-in-a-lifetime moments or events, can rightfully command a premium price. However, when I see things like this, I have to wonder if they are just scams for laundering drug money. I mean, rather than paying $4.3 for this picture, someone could buy or rent the same equipment, go to (or hire a photographer to go to) the same location at the river, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year and essentially capture the same image. I must be missing something here.
Such Good Photography!Andreas Gursky's "Rhine II" (141" x 81" photographic print).
SALE !!! I will sell this one for 2.1 million.VTL ST50 w/mods / RCA6L6GC / TlfnknECC801S
Conrad Johnson PV-5 w/mods
TT Conrad Johnson Sonographe SG3 Oak / Sumiko LMT / Grado Woodbody Platinum / Sumiko PIB2 / The Clamp
Musical Fidelity A1 CDPro/ Bada DD-22 Tube CDP / Conrad Johnson SD-22 CDP
Tuners w/mods Kenwood KT5020 / Fisher KM60
MF x-DAC V8, HAInfo NG27
Herbies Ti-9 / Vibrapods / MIT Shotgun AC1 IEC's / MIT Shotgun 2 IC's / MIT Shotgun 2 Speaker Cables
PS Audio Cryo / PowerPort Premium Outlets / Exact Power EP15A Conditioner
Walnut SDA 2B TL /Oak SDA SRS II TL (Sonicaps/Mills/Cardas/Custom SDA ICs / Dynamat Extreme / Larry's Rings/ FSB-2 Spikes
NAD SS rigs w/mods
GIK panels -
inspiredsports wrote: »SALE !!! I will sell this one for 2.1 million.
Sorry....only waterfront scenes command those types of prices.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Art, as with anything, is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. I believe the draw to this particular piece is the way that a scene captured in nature so very closely resembles what one might expect from a contemporary artist. The uniformity of the color of the sky, the water and the lawn, along with the sharp, parallel lines--it does not seem like a photograph at all. So while at first glance it may seem a bit bland, it is also unique and a bit surprising. I dare say reproducing such a photograph would be a difficult task. $4.3 million worth of difficult? Can't say.
RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII -
DarqueKnight wrote: »The glass-mounted panoramic color print "Rhein II", created in 1999, is one of an edition of six works.
(141" x 81" photographic print).[/b][/center]
Maybe they bought it for the frame. -
VTL ST50 w/mods / RCA6L6GC / TlfnknECC801S
Conrad Johnson PV-5 w/mods
TT Conrad Johnson Sonographe SG3 Oak / Sumiko LMT / Grado Woodbody Platinum / Sumiko PIB2 / The Clamp
Musical Fidelity A1 CDPro/ Bada DD-22 Tube CDP / Conrad Johnson SD-22 CDP
Tuners w/mods Kenwood KT5020 / Fisher KM60
MF x-DAC V8, HAInfo NG27
Herbies Ti-9 / Vibrapods / MIT Shotgun AC1 IEC's / MIT Shotgun 2 IC's / MIT Shotgun 2 Speaker Cables
PS Audio Cryo / PowerPort Premium Outlets / Exact Power EP15A Conditioner
Walnut SDA 2B TL /Oak SDA SRS II TL (Sonicaps/Mills/Cardas/Custom SDA ICs / Dynamat Extreme / Larry's Rings/ FSB-2 Spikes
NAD SS rigs w/mods
GIK panels -
That is a bland shot in my eyes too. At least the grass was mowed nicely
-
Yep rich people are stupid they buy $4.3m photographs and sell them 4 years latter for $5.8m.Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »Yeah this was posted a few weeks back - still amazes me how stupid rich people can be lol
Us poor folk buy a $10.00 poster of Justin Beiber from Walmart and sell it 4 years latter at a yard sale for $0.25. -
I dare say reproducing such a photograph would be a difficult task.
$.20 digital reprint from Walmart? -
I don't think Walmart does 141" by 81" prints.
RT-12, CS350-LS, PSW-300, Infinity Overture 1, Monoprice RC-65i
Adcom GFA-545II, GFA-6000, Outlaw Audio 990, Netgear NeoTV
Denon DCM-460, DMD-1000, Sony BDP-360, Bravia KDL-40Z4100/S
Monster AVL-300, HTS-2500 MKII -
I dare say reproducing such a photograph would be a difficult task.
Why would it be difficult for someone else to take the same picture? Landscapes are a fairly static subject. This isn't a once in a 1000 years volcanic eruption or a scene from the difficult to access summit of Mt. Everest. Why couldn't someone buy or rent the same photographic equipment, go to (or hire a photographer to go to) the same location at the river, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year and essentially capture the same image?Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »Why would it be difficult for someone else to take the same picture? Landscapes are a fairly static subject. This isn't a once in a 1000 years volcanic eruption or a scene from the difficult to access summit of Mt. Everest. Why couldn't someone buy or rent the same photographic equipment, go to (or hire a photographer to go to) the same location at the river, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year and essentially capture the same image?
Isn't this like asking why can't someone paint the Mona Lisa again?
A copy is a copy no matter what the media. -
This is a self portrait of photographer Cindy Sherman. It sold at auction at Christie's New York in May 2011 for $3.89 million.Cindy Sherman's "Untitled #97"Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
-
Isn't this like asking why can't someone paint the Mona Lisa again?
No...it is not.
Scientists and artists have been analyzing Leonardo de Vinci's painting techniques for decades in order to determine how he achieved such a "lifelike" quality to this painting. Sure, someone could "copy" the image of the painting. They wouldn't be able to copy de Vinci's brush strokes, his methods of painstakingly applying ultra-thin layers of oil paint, his mastery of light and texture which give this painting a "three-dimensional quality, and his genius for mixing colors.A copy is a copy no matter what the media.
A copy is a copy but a copy is not always a reproduction. I can make a near perfect copy of a $100 bill with a high resolution color scanner and laser printer. However, I don't have any of that special paper that the US Treasury uses. Therefore, my copy would not be a reproduction. It would more appropriately be called a cheap imitation.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »A copy is a copy but a copy is not always a reproduction. I can make a near perfect copy of a $100 bill with a high resolution color scanner and laser printer. However, I don't have any of that special paper that the US Treasury uses. Therefore, my copy would not be a reproduction. It would more appropriately be called a cheap imitation.
That, and perhaps a felony. :razz:Jay
SDA 2BTL * Musical Fidelity A5cr amp * Oppo BDP-93 * Modded Adcom GDA-600 DAC * Rythmik F8 (x2)
Micro Seiki DQ-50 * Hagerman Cornet 2 Phono * A hodgepodge of cabling * Belkin PF60
Preamp rotation: Krell KSL (SCompRacer recapped) * Manley Shrimp * PS Audio 5.0 -
For the purpose of discussion in the above quote are you asking why one could not copy or reproduce the image taken by German artist Andreas Gursky?DarqueKnight wrote: »Why would it be difficult for someone else to take the same picture? Landscapes are a fairly static subject. This isn't a once in a 1000 years volcanic eruption or a scene from the difficult to access summit of Mt. Everest. Why couldn't someone buy or rent the same photographic equipment, go to (or hire a photographer to go to) the same location at the river, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year and essentially capture the same image?
And for the record if I wanted to spend $4.3M on art I wouldn't spend it on a photograph I would shell out a little more for a a Monet like thishttp://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ZoomImage.aspx?image=/lotfinderimages/d54588/d5458869&IntObjectID=5458869 (can't figure out how to upload the picture) which sold for $4.9M in June http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/claude-monet-la-seine-pres-de-vetheuil/5458869/lot/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&pos=5&intObjectID=5458869&sid=3b1928b5-6f40-469f-974e-95f39d1da5a1&page=13 -
For the purpose of discussion in the above quote are you asking why one could not copy or reproduce the image taken by German artist Andreas Gursky?
No, I was not speaking of copying Gursky's photograph. My point was that a different photographer using the same equipment at the same location on the river bank at the same time of day during the same time of the year could take a picture essentially the same as Gursky's...and then have it printed a the same, or a similarly equipped, photo lab.DarqueKnight wrote: »Why would it be difficult for someone else to take the same picture? Landscapes are a fairly static subject. This isn't a once in a 1000 years volcanic eruption or a scene from the difficult to access summit of Mt. Everest. Why couldn't someone buy or rent the same photographic equipment, go to (or hire a photographer to go to) the same location at the river, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year and essentially capture the same image?
Syndil said that "reproducing such a photograph would be difficult". I don't understand why. Making high quality, gallery size prints is not a trivial process, but in most cases, the processing lab, and not the photographer does the printing. I don't see anything unique, interesting or technically difficult about capturing that image.And for the record if I wanted to spend $4.3M on art I wouldn't spend it on a photograph I would shell out a little more for a a Monet like thishttp://www.christies.com/lotfinder/ZoomImage.aspx?image=/lotfinderimages/d54588/d5458869&IntObjectID=5458869 (can't figure out how to upload the picture) which sold for $4.9M in June http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/claude-monet-la-seine-pres-de-vetheuil/5458869/lot/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&pos=5&intObjectID=5458869&sid=3b1928b5-6f40-469f-974e-95f39d1da5a1&page=13
I love impressionist art.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
DarqueKnight wrote: »...... could take a picture essentially the same as Gursky's...and then have it printed a the same, or a similarly equipped, photo lab.
But would it be "bit perfect"?:cheesygrin:
Not meaning to be argumentative, but isn't that the beauty of art. I do find the symmetry of the subject matter interesting including the way it captures three of the four elements (air, earth and water).DarqueKnight wrote: »I don't see anything unique, interesting or technically difficult about capturing that image.
.
Would I spend $4.3M on it, no. But he seams to have earned the $$ for his work. Now weather or not it will be worth that in a 50 years will be interesting to see.
How much was Monet selling his work for initially?
I am sure he would have loved to receive $4.3M for one of his paintings and based on today he would have deserved it. -
Ansel Adams took autumn moon in 1948, photographers have been trying ever since to replicate this, but so far none succeeded.
-izafar
Goldenear Technology Triton 1 - Benchmark AHB2 - Benchmark LA4 - Auralic Vega - Auralic Aries Mini - Marantz TT-15S1 - Clearaudio Nano -
Ansel Adams took autumn moon in 1948, photographers have been trying ever since to replicate this, but so far none succeeded.
Forensic Astronomer Solves Fine Arts Puzzles
Astrophysicist Don Olson breaks down the barriers between science and art by analyzing literature and paintings from the past.
By Jennifer Drapkin and Sarah Zielinski, Smithsonian magazine, April 2009
In addition to puzzles in history, literature and art, Olson also likes photographic puzzles, such as the one he posed to students in an Astronomy in Art History and Literature course he taught at Texas State: When did Ansel Adams capture his celebrated Yosemite National Park image Moon and Half Dome? Although Adams kept careful technical records?noting shutter speeds, f-stops, lenses and film?he rarely dated his negatives, to the frustration of art historians. In the case of Moon and Half Dome, Adams noted only that he had taken it in 1960.
After a field trip to view Yosemite's cliffs and using clues from the photograph?the amount of snow on the ground, the phase of the Moon and the depth of the shadows on the granite dome?Olson and his students concluded that the photograph had been taken at 4:14 p.m. on December 28, 1960. And since they also determined that the Moon and Sun would be in nearly identical places at 4:05 p.m. on December 13, 1994, dozens of Adams fans and even a couple of the photographer's relatives, including his daughter-in-law and grandson, went to the park on that day to shoot their own versions of the iconic photograph.
Olson and another group of students took on Adams' Autumn Moon, a panorama of Yosemite Valley that had been dated in various books to either 1944 or 1948. A series of photographs of the valley taken by a park ranger in 2004 helped them pinpoint where Adams likely took the picture, while weather records and the angle of the Moon helped narrow down the day. Shadows in a color photograph of the scene that Adams took two and a half minutes before he made the black-and-white exposure (based on the position of the Moon) gave clues to the Sun's location and the time of the shot. Olson determined that it had been taken at 7:03 p.m. on September 15, 1948.
He was then able to predict when the light and seasonal conditions would be virtually identical, and he and hundreds of Adams fans ventured to the spot at the appointed time. At 6:52 p.m. on September 15, 2005, Olson's colleague Doescher snapped a photograph that looks eerily similar to Adams' masterpiece. "In a project like this, the journey is its own reward," says Olson. "We not only got to walk in Adams' footsteps, we got to understand the circumstances under which he took the photograph. And the truth is, I think he was prepared. I think he knew that moment in nature was coming."
Source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Celestial-Sleuth.html?c=y&page=3
The article mentions that Ansel Adams kept meticulous records of how a shot was taken, but not when and where. He also was not very forthcoming about the processing techniques he used when printing his pictures (e.g. one area of a photograph might have more exposure or a different type of chemical processing than another).
Izafar's example of the Adams photograph illustrates my earlier point about the Gursky "Rhine II" photograph:DarqueKnight wrote: »I mean, rather than paying $4.3 for this picture, someone could buy or rent the same equipment, go to (or hire a photographer to go to) the same location at the river, at the same time of day, during the same time of the year and essentially capture the same image. I must be missing something here.
As I said before, landscapes are a fairly static subject. Notice that the mountains, moon and even the trees in Olson's photograph are as they were when Adams photographed them 57 years earlier. The dynamic elements (clouds, atmospheric haze, snow) could be digitally added to more accurately reproduce the Adam's original image. In the case of "Autumn Moon" some painstaking research was required to determine the location and time that the photograph was taken. In addition to this, travel to a remote area was required.
In the case of the Gursky photograph, the sidewalk leads me to believe that that particular location on the Rhine river was easily accessible. Similar to the results that Olson obtained with his version of "Autumn Moon", I don't understand why someone would think that a photograph very similar to "Rhine II" could not be taken if the same equipment, time of day, time of year and similar weather conditions were utilized.Top: Ansel Adams "Autumn Moon" taken in 1948. Bottom: Don Olson "Autumn Moon" taken in 2005Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
Cheap imposter. All that effort to calculate the lighting and the position of the moon, and he still couldn't get the clouds right. :redface:DarqueKnight wrote: »Top: Ansel Adams "Autumn Moon" taken in 1948. Bottom: Don Olson "Autumn Moon" taken in 2005 -
DarqueKnight wrote: »In the case of the Gursky photograph, the sidewalk leads me to believe that that particular location on the Rhine river was easily accessible. Similar to the results that Olson obtained with his version of "Autumn Moon", I don't understand why someone would think that a photograph very similar to "Rhine II" could not be taken if the same equipment, time of day, time of year and similar weather conditions were utilized.Top: Ansel Adams "Autumn Moon" taken in 1948. Bottom: Don Olson "Autumn Moon" taken in 2005
Probably for the same reason that the two Autumn moon photos are completely different looking. Especially the lighting. I'm doubtful the exact same conditions will ever happen again. -
But, each new photo in nature taken only a second apart will likely capture an image that will never quite be repeated. Gursky should have clicked that shutter until his finger fell off and sold each one as an original...Probably for the same reason that the two Autumn moon photos are completely different looking. Especially the lighting. I'm doubtful the exact same conditions will ever happen again. -
Probably for the same reason that the two Autumn moon photos are completely different looking. Especially the lighting. I'm doubtful the exact same conditions will ever happen again.
You must have missed this:DarqueKnight wrote: »The article mentions that Ansel Adams kept meticulous records of how a shot was taken, but not when and where. He also was not very forthcoming about the processing techniques he used when printing his pictures (e.g. one area of a photograph might have more exposure or a different type of chemical processing than another).
What you see in the Ansel Adams photo is a result of the extensive proprietary processing that Adams did when printing the photograph. The finished photograph didn't look anything like what Adams' eyes or his camera saw. The Olson photo is probably very close to the raw photo that came out of Adams' camera.DarqueKnight wrote: »Notice that the mountains, moon and even the trees in Olson's photograph are as they were when Adams photographed them 57 years earlier. The dynamic elements (clouds, atmospheric haze, snow) could be digitally added to more accurately reproduce the Adam's original image.
The main point of the comparative photo is that the main elements (the cake) of the Adams photo were duplicated. Everything else is icing that can be digitally added or replicated in chemical processing.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
I would agree that it is plausible to do but using your words and I would describe it as a "cheap imitation" and not worth commanding the big $$$. To me the example you give of the Ansel Adams "Autumn Moon" taken in 1948 and the Don Olson "Autumn Moon" taken in 2005 proves this. At the same time because it is plausible to do it is also part of the reason I personally would shy away from purchasing big $$$ pictures and choose to instead purchase original paintings or sculptures.DarqueKnight wrote: »No, I was not speaking of copying Gursky's photograph. My point was that a different photographer using the same equipment at the same location on the river bank at the same time of day during the same time of the year could take a picture essentially the same as Gursky's...and then have it printed a the same, or a similarly equipped, photo lab. -
I would agree that it is plausible to do but using your words and I would describe it as a "cheap imitation" and not worth commanding the big $$$. To me the example you give of the Ansel Adams "Autumn Moon" taken in 1948 and the Don Olson "Autumn Moon" taken in 2005 proves this. At the same time because it is plausible to do it is also part of the reason I personally would shy away from purchasing big $$$ pictures and choose to instead purchase original paintings or sculptures.
What it really proves is that Ansel Adams was right in not making it easy for copycats by divulging the time and locations of his photographs. Ansel Adams was notoriously (and appropriately) secretive about the time and location of his shots. A good magician never divulges his secrets. The difficulty that photographers encountered in replicating the "Autumn Moon" photograph was that the time and location were unknown. Adams also knew that, even if someone were to stumble on the exact time and location of "Autumn Moon", it would still be virtually impossible to duplicate the processing steps he used when printing the photograph. However, with todays high resolution computer-based photgraphic scanning and printing tools, it would be ridiculously simple to replicate Adams' manual printing methods.DarqueKnight wrote: »What you see in the Ansel Adams photo is a result of the extensive proprietary processing that Adams did when printing the photograph. The finished photograph didn't look anything like what Adams' eyes or his camera saw. The Olson photo is probably very close to the raw photo that came out of Adams' camera.
The main point of the comparative photo is that the main elements (the cake) of the Adams photo were duplicated. Everything else is icing that can be digitally added or replicated in chemical processing.At the same time because it is plausible to do it is also part of the reason I personally would shy away from purchasing big $$$ pictures and choose to instead purchase original paintings or sculptures.
Agreed.Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country! -
I couldn't let this go and needed some perspective so I did a little google search and found on wikipidia that the most expensive Ansel Adam print was sold for about $610,000 in 2006.
DK, I think I am now on board... Drug Money...
I will stick with dreaming of owning a Monet one day. -
I couldn't let this go and needed some perspective so I did a little google search and found on wikipidia that the most expensive Ansel Adam print was sold for about $610,000 in 2006.
DK, I think I am now on board... Drug Money...
Yeah, it's easy to understand why organized crime is so heavily involved in the entertainment and art world. What other fields of commerce offer such good opportunities to quickly launder illicit income?
Instead of having to explain how $3.89 million showed up in your bank account when you have no gainful employment, open an "art gallery" and say you sold one photograph of a lady with a pink bathrobe for $3.89 million. Instead of having to explain how $20 million showed up in your bank account when you have no gainful employment, start a record company and "sell" 4 million CD's at $5 each wholesale. Everything on the books will be legit. Such Good Business!DarqueKnight wrote: »This is a self portrait of photographer Cindy Sherman. It sold at auction at Christie's New York in May 2011 for $3.89 million.Cindy Sherman's "Untitled #97"Proud and loyal citizen of the Digital Domain and Solid State Country!
