File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Most expensive photo ever.
>> Anonymous
its a great photo, and gursky is great but he's such a fucking weird electronica loving eurofag, it turns me off his stuff, which is good.

either way, the art market is fucked. people have too much money. shit.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>Most expensive photo ever.

No, this is.
>> Anonymous
I dont quite understand this.>>177241

Did he buy everything there or something?
>> Anonymous
>>177266
Sorry, I meant that this photo sold for 3.4 million dollars, the highest amount paid for a photograph. It's a great, interesting photo no doubt, but so are so many others.
>> Anonymous
>>177266
The "99 Cent II, Diptych" print sold for like $3.3 million (USD). It's a record for highest price for a photo.
>> Anonymous
>>177271
Sorry about that.
>> Anonymous
>>177269
Well that's amazing then. A print though? How big was it? You mean that wasn't even the negative/file either right?
>> Anonymous
>>177271
WTF??? What kinda retard pays that much for a shitty picture?
>> Anonymous
Fuck, being rich must be boring, if you're wasting millions buying dumb shit like this.

jealousfag here
>> Anonymous
>>177278
Even if you're jealous, you've got a point.

I can't believe this crap sold for that much.
>> Anonymous
It's not the art itself, but the notoriety of being the owner of the most expensive photograph.
>> Anonymous
>>177313
I would personally rather be the owner of 3.4 million.
>> Anonymous
>>177315
Sekkkonded.
>> Anonymous
>>177318
thirkkonded
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
No, THIS IS

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareQuickTime 7.2Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:09:03 20:29:34Exposure Time1/640 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length25.00 mmImage Width1280Image Height852
>> Anonymous
>>177277
Wow, go out and take pictures instead of complain. Or at least give some proper arguments, instead of acting butthurt.

>>177275
Who the fuck would even ever sell his negs? That's just stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>177337
No, it's stupid. Art as a commodity it stupid. It should be revolving around a bunch of museums, not sitting in some rich shit's "private collection."
>> Anonymous
Why can pictures demand such a ridiculous price? You can print as many as you want.
>> Anonymous
>>177275
I believe it's something like 22 feet wide.
>> Anonymous
I could go to a Walmart and take something that would be very similar. WTF is so great about the OP pic?

It's like people considering paintings of badly drawn geometric shapes masterpieces - fucking artfags...
>> Anonymous
>>177352
Yes, you could, but you didn't. This guy had the eye to recognize the right place and moment to take the right picture, not one like it.

It's still stupid how much it was sold for, but that's no reason to bash the work itself.
>> washer !kxrJVlZ8OE
>>177352
the good thing is that he bases his photo on rhythm notice the poles, how there are three up front and there are two in the back, all perfectly aligned. then there is the shelves...

personally i think it's a stupid photo that is too busy, and is definitely not worth over 40 bucks
>> washer !kxrJVlZ8OE
whoops he beat me to it.
>> Anonymous
i think you all need to see the photo from a different perspective. The photo was largely taken with a photojournalism intent. It was meant to capture a peice history, reflect the world as it is today.

The photo didnt sell because of its 'rhythm' or becuase of the nicely arranged boxes (allthough obviously they were a crucial factor), the photo sold because it is a reflection of the morden day marketplace, a common ground all westerners can relate too. Things like '99c' reflect the nature of society we currently live in and is an accurate account of commercialism and consumerism within modern day society.
>> Anonymous
the photo is mean to almost depress us, as it highlights the certain things we stress over. It puts it into perspective how ridiculous some things are -> we shop from there, in certain 3rd world countries they search through the garbage dump to find the smallest morsel of food. The image causes us to question how we are living, to reflect us at its most vulgar just how ridiculous this age of consumerism is.
>> Anonymous
ITT: We over think in an attempt to justify a silly photograph that's not worth its price tag.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
art = stupid
>> ??????????????????????????Anonymous???????????
this != art
this = stupid
>> Anonymous
ITT: Everyone who is an art expert.
>> Anonymous
>>177391
OMG what is this wizardry!
>> Anonymous
>>177387
what is a morden day marketplace

>>177241
anyone have any higher res files?
picture looks fucking awful this small
>> Anonymous
>>177387
>>177388
is correct.

the object of photojournalism is to document history. this photo does that brilliantly.
>> Anonymous
>>177353
>>177406

Not only did the guy take this photo, he apparently also knew how to sell it.

//99-prices are funny. Does that crap actually work?
>> Anonymous
>>177338
Uhh, selling your negs is still stupid.
>> Martin !!N3K22y5bo59
>>177391
woah :|
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
this thread is making me seriously hate /p/.

you're all idiots, this is an amazing photograph, gursky is one of the great living photographers. fuck off, all of you.
>> Tepache !4avJBSMAPo
I can't find any info explaining how big the pints were.
Not even on Wikipedia.
>> Anonymous
>>177628
Just because he is a great photographer doesn't mean you have to like his work. I mean, most people are just surprised or angry and that is justifiable.
>> Anonymous
>>177643
Why does it matter? It was probably between 30 and 50 inches. Even if it were 20 feet, it wouldn't make a difference in how you see it.
>> Anonymous
>>177628

Composition & subject on this specific photo is shit.
Only reason it sells for so much is that it's ZOMG DETAILED AS FUCK and he has really, really, really expensive gear.
>> Tepache !4avJBSMAPo
>>177663
>Why does it matter? It was probably between 30 and 50 inches. Even if it were 20 feet, it wouldn't make a difference in how you see it.

From what I've read the most interesting thing about this photo is that it's clear enough that you can read the labels on the packages in the photo. Therefore the bigger the better. Additionally, larger prints are harder to produce and thus more expensive. It's not like this photo would have sold for the same price if it was a 4"x5" print, dickweed.
>> Anonymous
>>177628

agreed, this is ridiculous. this is a great photo. you all probably take fucking low light pictures of your cats. fuck off.
>> Anonymous
I don't understand why anyone would pay so much for this photo. There's nothing special about it.
>> Anonymous
>>177628

You fuck off. What is amazing about this photo then? Let's hear it if you are so sure of yourself.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>177778

It's funny, I was wondering what the big deal is about this photo, then i saw a larger res version.

It simply is amazing. The symbolism and commentary are all there, you just have to find it. If I felt like, or indeed were capable of an articulate critique on its aesthetic appeal, i would.

But don't hate for the sake of it.
>> Anonymous
>>177788
Link?
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
     File :-(, x)
>>177778
Go fuck yourself, faggot
>> Anonymous
>>177793
Beethy, just stop.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>177798
ok legion
>> Anonymous
>>177788

In other words you just like it because it has lots of megapixels and you can't come up with any other reason. You are so full of shit.
>> Anonymous
>>177793

You are no Butterfly. You're like a toddler trying to imitate mommy and daddy, but clumsily stumbling around like an idiot instead.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>177824
I don't see why there is so much trolling on here about this photo. It's a great photo. Even just for the fact that it is aesthetically pleasing.
>> Anonymous
>>177828

why is it great then? it's just a snap of the store taken on a ladder. big whoop.
>> Anonymous
This is what we've come to in 2008.

Some rich bastard is unable to go to his local supermarket and experience average American consumerism, so he does it in his own way by buying a 22 foot-wide picture of it, complete with readable Nutrition Facts. Nice.
>> Anonymous
>>177829
You need to learn more about photography. No one said it was the best photograph in the world because there is no such thing and everyone has their own opinions, but it is great because it is detailed while organized, it is dominated by horizontal and perspective lines and it is a commentary on consumer culture. You don't find it ironic that a picture of a 99cent store sold for millions of dollars?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>177829
Have you ever taken a snap this nice? I think it's been framed perfectly. He captured the scale of the store very well.
>> Anonymous
>>177867

bullshit. it's just a guy on a ladder taking a snap of the store. i've seen it done before and it didn't cost millions.

this is why the world is going to hell fast. soon people will wonder why anyone would ever suggest putting toilet water on the plants instead of brawndo.
>> Anonymous
>>177868

i've seen shitloads like this in promotional material for warehouses and stores. it's boooooooooooooring.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
If it makes you guys feel any better, I'll post the rest of the most expensive photographs listed on wikipedia.

2. Edward Steichen, The Pond-Moonlight (1904), $2,928,000
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
3. Richard Prince, Untitled (Cowboy) (1989), $1,248,000
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
4. Joseph-Philibert Girault de Prangey, 113.Athènes, T[emple] de J[upiter] olympien pris de l'est (1842) $922,488, 2003
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Gustave Le Gray, The Great Wave, Sete (1857) $838,000
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
6. Robert Mapplethorpe, Andy Warhol (1987) $643,200
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
7. Ansel Adams, Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico (1948) $609,600
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
8. Andreas Gursky, Untitled V (1997) $559,724

Another by Gursky. This is 14 feet long. (they're shoes btw)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
9. Gustave Le Gray, Tree (1855), $513,150

Another by Le Gray
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
10. Diane Arbus, Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967 (1967) $478,400

Same photographer who photographed grenade kid.
>> Jeremo
>>177824

In other words you're unable to come up with your argument to prove your point and want other people to do the thinking for you.

You're trolling is failing miserably hard.
>> Anonymous
>>177871
1. It going for so much is bullshit, yes. It, like all art, should be going around public museums and not shoved in some rich asshole's collection as a status symbol.

2. However, you seem pretty ignorant of art history. Paintings of marketplace scenes were very common in European art in (IIRC) the 16th century. This is just that transplanted to another medium.
>> Anonymous
So if this is just an average or bad picture, how come you didn't take it, or did something better by now?

GTFO AND TAKE SOME PICTURES.
>> Anonymous
>>177951
By bitching about photographs, we don't need to take them. It shows how knowledgeable we are on the subject without needing to waste time shooting pictures.
>> Anonymous
I'd pay 400k$ for the Diane Arbus shot of the kid with the grenade.
If only I had that money.
>> Anonymous
>>177912

You are a complete moron. I asked you to back up YOUR CLAIMS, IDIOT. You have failed to do so. That means you are full of shit.
>> Anonymous
>>177951
Actually, I can honsestly sayt that I think I have shot better pics than that. I dont anyone would pay for them though.
>> Anonymous
>>178158
You saying so and not posting them already shows your fail, faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>178172
I have posted them on /p/ before. Some of them were very well received. Im not gonna post anything right now, because of the stupid lynching-mood /p/eople get into whenever anyone makes a statement like my last one. Its not that I cant handle critique, its just that I want it to be honest and not provoked.
>> Anonymous
>>177878
I think this is the best photograph in this thread. But why are so much of these utterly lame? It's as if, if you've built yourself a name, anything you take = instant art.
>> Anonymous
ITT: people that cant cope with discussing anything other than their canon xti.
>> Anonymous
>>178181

everything that has a value is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Diamonds aren't rare, far from it, but they have a value as there is a demand and people are willing to pay.

Also buying art on this scale is an investment. just look at the college student in the uk that bought a banksy painting for £300 and sold it for £150,000.
>> h0z
>>177885

omg im in love <3

haha maybe i should recreate this? i have (last count) 47 pairs of shoes and boots :D

haha *yeh im obsessed*
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>178191

God i hope you're a girl... 47 pairs of shoes is not normal for a person with a penis
>> Anonymous
>>178298
see
>>178248
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>178300

oh come on... this is 4chan... you think that photo proves anything? :D
>> Anonymous
>>178175
And you think you will be believed? Heck, I haven't had ANY bad comments on /p/, but does that mean they're good? No. Geez, kill your ego please.
>> Anonymous
>>178181
I'm sure you'd be thrilled to know that Richard Prince took a picture of a Marlboro ad. Yes, that's the Marlboro man, and he did nothing but copy the ad and put it in a museum. He won the lawsuits that resulted from this because the image was recontextualized by being placed in a museum.
>> Anonymous
>>178348

This is true. He' s basically a successful art thief. No more impressive than me copying stuff out of my photobooks or stealing from some of /p/'s deviantart or flickr.
>> Anonymous
>>178470
>>178348
lrn2art, AND GTFO AND TAKE SOME FUCKING PICTURES.
>> Anonymous
>>178181
>It's as if, if you've built yourself a name, anything you take = instant art.

This is one way to look at it. Another is this: these people obviously know what they're doing; you know this by who they are and what they've done in the past not being shit. If they do something off or something that seems silly or trite initially, you know they didn't just do it because they were some DeviantArt hack. You know their work, you have a sense of who they are, and that they had some reason to press the shutter pointing the camera at this thing and show the results to you. Basically, you give them the benefit of the doubt.

Take this photograph from David Alan Harvey's most recent book, "Living Proof."

http://www.davidalanharvey.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=1&p=2

At first glance, I thought "Living Proof" was a flat-out dud, and that this was just another random club shot. Anyone who knows how to use a flash and has an eye for hot girls could've shot it. That anyone with those traits could've shot this photograph, that much is true.

But the same David Alan Harvey who shot this, who deemed this image part of a statement, who thought "Living Proof" was an estimable work, was the same one who put out "Cuba" and "Divided Soul," which are just plain masterpieces. And the same David Alan Harvey who shot this image:

http://www.davidalanharvey.com/#a=0&at=0&s=8&p=1

And tons of other work at Carnival in Brazil.

Looking more closely at "Living Proof," I saw how it fit in with the rest of Harvey's work, working on some of his same concerns: widely spread cultures, religion, women and feminine beauty, public celebrations, and other things. I still think it's his weakest work, but I don't think it's a dud. And the specific shot in question? I see how it works. I still don't think it's a great shot, but I can see how it's important in the context of "Living Proof" and Harvey's overall body of work.
>> Anonymous
>>178828
y halo thar Jeremo
>> Anonymous
>>178181
>It's as if, if you've built yourself a name, anything you take = instant art.

100% true, as long as you can also bullshit it.
Actually, if you can properly bullshit and kiss ass your work can be unimaginably horrible and hackneyed, and you'll still get shown in galleries and people will still buy your photos/paintings/sculptures/etc.

Have you seen the work of Jeff Koons, for instance?
Considered by many to be one of the most brilliant pop artists alive, HE DOESN'T EVER MAKE HIS OWN PIECES, and 90% of them are copies of things other people have made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/arts/23rabbit.html

Dude copied the shape of a cheapie inflatable rabbit from a Chinese dollar store, had other people make it real huge and out of slightly shiny material, and suddenly HOLY SHIT BRILLIANT POP ART.

The problem right now is that Photography unfortunately finds its way into both fine art and pop art exhibitions. Pop art photography is shit. Just utter shit. Because everything in pop art is just shit.

Fine art photography is the good shit, the stuff that shows technical mastery and a really deep understanding of how to work with a camera, and unfortunately it's being destroyed by the glitz and glamour that is pop.

Hell, have you been to a MoMA lately? All forms of art are suffering the same problems now. You're more likely to see a stupid sketch on a cocktail napkin in a MoMA than you are to see a beautiful painting that shows any semblance of craft or skill.
>> Anonymous
>>178897

So true.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>178897

So true about Jeff Koons too... he's the most expensive living artist... oy
>> Anonymous
>>178897
good artist copy, great artists steal
>> Anonymous
>>178897
>>178900
Samefag?

Just because you cannot appreciate or understand something, does not mean it is shit. lrn2opinion, lrn2art.