Worlds Most Expensive Photo ($4.3m)
- Thread starter DJ-Steved
- Start Date
- Messages
- 5,874
Would look quite nice in my back bedroom, i'll take two.
Jamie.
Jamie.
You're paying for the artist and the provenance. Gursky is top drawer, and has pieces in the top galleries in the world, including the Tate in London and Museum of Modern Art in New York.
The person who bought it won't be buying it because the colours will match their living room. They'll either be a serious collector or buying it as an investment, they'll be getting a photograph from one of the masters of the Düsseldorf school which is not going to be worth £50 next year.
Some of his work is fantastic and although this one isn't my cup of tea/I don't understand/can't appreciate it, I can understand why it commanded so much.
The person who bought it won't be buying it because the colours will match their living room. They'll either be a serious collector or buying it as an investment, they'll be getting a photograph from one of the masters of the Düsseldorf school which is not going to be worth £50 next year.
Some of his work is fantastic and although this one isn't my cup of tea/I don't understand/can't appreciate it, I can understand why it commanded so much.
- Messages
- 5,874
Art at that level usually as very little to do with how more talented or how much better you are than lets say someone who's just won the Turner prize for his or her work, it's very fickle and driven by luck and if you have the right financial backers promoting you then your are sitting pretty, the Art world is under the control of big money always as been and if they like you then you will succeed no matter what, and anyone with a brain must understand this, just take Vincent Van Gough, sold one painting in his lifetime, then he died, then big money decided he was great, Big money 1 Vincent 0. it happens all the time, if you face fits your in if it dont then we will wait till you die then reap the rewards.
Regards Jamie
Regards Jamie
- Messages
- 5,246
At the risk of sounding like a philistine... The photo's content and composition wasn't really that unique? 'Vincent' on the other hand did offer a different perspective to what was reality.
On the day that the photo was taken any number of individuals standing there shooting would have the same picture; but not the same for the Van Gogh.
On the day that the photo was taken any number of individuals standing there shooting would have the same picture; but not the same for the Van Gogh.
- Messages
- 5,874
Exactly my sentiments, Van Gough was truly a gifted Artist and his work was truly a moving atristic masterpiece, but as you said anyone could have taken that photo and if they did then no one would even have left a comment, but because that Artist is linked to big money backers and world renown galleries it somehow makes the photo more important. that's what happens when you link Art creativity with money it somehow totally defeats the object of Art.
Jamie
Jamie
