Moderators dtel Posted November 11, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 11, 2011 I have seen alot of great pics online but I just don't see this pic being worth 4.3 mil or even $430. It's just crazy no matter who took the pic for that price. http://news.yahoo.com/record-photo-sold-auction-set-nyc-182745446.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest " " Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I'll tell you why you don't get it....becuase you don't get it. Think about the stocks that Person W bought for a dollar from person X and then sold to person Y for 100,000.00 It would be a rule violation for person Y to donate to Person Wthe 100,000.00 directly We really do not know what transactions these symbols represent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted November 11, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted November 11, 2011 Never thought of it that way. In the long run there going to get what they want one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy Dee Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I don't see it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderbender Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I usually hit "delete" on photos I think look a lot better than that! No accounting for taste.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 People at drunken parties take better pictures. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invidiosulus Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 It's rather nice in a minimalist kind of way. A piece of art is worth what someone is willing to pay. I've been fortunate enough to be on the selling end of some paintings that somebody liked enough to pay a few hundred for when I knew I only had an hours worth of time invested in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxx Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 I see it... It's proof that there is water on Mars.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigStewMan Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 dtel...it's symbolic of our struggle against oppression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscarsear Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 I guess it is a rare demonstration of uniformity in nature. If nothing else it would make a great jigsaw puzzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st. patrick Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 []Exactly, which is why I dropped out of the bidding once it went over 3 million . . . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted November 12, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted November 12, 2011 dtel...it's symbolic of our struggle against oppression. Well it's no wonder I didn't get it, I'm immune, in other words married. hope Christy don't read this [:#] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete H Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Good thing it wasn't a painting of grass and water or it would have brought double that. Time to get the camera out and take some boring pictures; who knows, maybe they have realatives with too much money and no taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Just what landfill is it? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groomlakearea51 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 hope Christy don't read this You are dead meat..... take a picture now..... before she reads it.... Itc could be worth a fortune later.... Heh, Heh...LOL!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 It's a photo of Manhattan Island after global warming melts all of the glaciers and floods the Atlantic Coast. You can tell it's fake because there aren't any displaced polar bears. -Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 It's art which means you don't have to get it. Understanding Andreas Gursky's artistic style is important to understanding this photo. He is one of the photographers that inspires me in my photography. I was honored when a NYC art curator compared my last collection to Gursky's work. Nearly every photographer that makes it out of Düsseldorf becomes a great photographer in their chosen genre. I dreamed of going to Düsseldorf for photography, maybe someday I will make it a reality. It's all in the eye of the beholder, just like many of the (sometimes ridiculous and sometimes ridiculously expensive) updates we make to our audio systems. Gursky used to have the world's most expensive photo which sold for over a million dollars. Also remember these aren't 4x5 prints, they are GIGANTIC. We're talking 80 inches tall and like 140 inches wide. See on in person, in real life and it starts to click, no pun intended. "The first time I saw photographs by Andreas Gursky...I had the disorienting sensation that something was happeninghappening to me, I suppose, although it felt more generalized than that. Gursky's huge, panoramic color printssome of them up to six feet high by ten feet longhad the presence, the formal power, and in several cases the majestic aura of nineteenth-century landscape paintings, without losing any of their meticulously detailed immediacy as photographs. Their subject matter was the contemporary world, seen dispassionately and from a distance." - critic Calvin Tomkins Just my thoughts, as a fine art photographer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang guy Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 dtel...it's symbolic of our struggle against oppression. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 they are GIGANTIC. We're talking 80 inches tall and like 140 inches wide. See on in person, in real life and it starts to click, no pun intended. Wow, 6.5' high and almost 12' wide puts it in a different context, if extremely fine details hold up. But, what exactly is artistically special? Dazzling massive fine detail such as individual grass blades in such a large pic? That would be very arresting by itself.The arrangement and spacing of the horizontal bands? The colors, somehow? Like some others here, I don't see what's terrific on a computer monitor. I'd appreciate the help. Some decades ago, Kodak displayed HUGE backlit transparencies showing astonishing detail, on the largest walls inside Grand Central Station. That had to be some accomplishment in the pre-digital days of film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 they are GIGANTIC. We're talking 80 inches tall and like 140 inches wide. See on in person, in real life and it starts to click, no pun intended. Wow, 6.5' high and almost 12' wide puts it in a different context, if extremely fine details hold up. But, what exactly is artistically special? Dazzling massive fine detail such as individual grass blades in such a large pic? That would be very arresting by itself.The arrangement and spacing of the horizontal bands? The colors, somehow? Like some others here, I don't see what's terrific on a computer monitor. I'd appreciate the help. Some decades ago, Kodak displayed HUGE backlit transparencies showing astonishing detail, on the largest walls inside Grand Central Station. That had to be some accomplishment in the pre-digital days of film. Gursky uses 100 ASA Fuji film in two large-format, 5x7 Linhof cameras. These cameras are placed next to each other, one with a wide angle lens and the other with a standard focal length lens. Due to the giant size of the film, the layer of two exposure, the incredibly slow 100 ASA film and the quality of the lenses, you can view these images at their gallery size and see detail that the naked eye could never see. It is unlike any digital photograph you have ever seen, with the exception of those gigapixel photos made through hundreds of exposures using prosumer/professional digital cameras.Using a slow film (100 ASA) prevents any grain and helps make moving objects invisible due to the slow shutter speed. Under-exposes the film by 1 f-stop and then pushes the development. This is a photography technique that can become quite complicated, especially when you're working with film, especially when that film is 5x7 and you have to do it perfectly, twice, for each photo you're making. Many of his photos are critiques on consumerism, engineering and extraction vs nature, the human complex and other "big ideas" you'd expect to be discussed at a TED conference. Understanding the context and intention behind each photos is integral to understanding its importance. This goes with artists like Nan Goldin, at first glance she is taking low-quality, disposable camera, flash photographs of drug addicts and prostitutes. Look a little closer and you realize it is a story about a population of people living with disease and mortality at their doorstep. People forgotten or ignored, victims of class and their experiments that lead to addiction and eventually death. Yet, through all this pain and sadness emerges small moments of humanity and happiness. Does that help? I love talking photography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.