UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15689652

Don't reckon it would get many votes on here!

In reply to Mark Bull:

Saw that earlier and was quite perplexed by it. Personally, quite a dull looking photo...but, crucially, what do I know...

In reply to PeterM: Horizon looks wonky. Id give it a 2* on UKC.

In reply to Mark Bull: A fool and his money are easily parted. I see it's comes with the requisite bullshit narrative.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Should a picture need a narrative? "picture paints a 1000 words.." and all that...

In reply to Mark Bull:

He even says its been 'Shopped'

In reply to PeterM:

It seems that it does if you want to make a shit one and sell it to an idiot for a fortune (although that idiot might not be so idiotic if he sells it to a bigger idiot for even more).

In reply to dek: I think iirc he removed a factory from the scene

In reply to Mark Bull:

I just don't get it from an artistic POV, and find the sums of money involved in this BS high art market sickening.

Most of us have probably taken several photos quite a lot like this - what separates this from them? All I can think of is reputation and pedigree of the 'artist' and its marketing. There's nothing special about the image itself, nor even really the very humdrum message/insight/emotion that's supposedly inspired it.

Or am I just one of the unenlightened fools missing the point?

In reply to Mark Bull:

pathetic. I can see what the point of the shot might be but it's nothing special and it's also been shopped to get to that.
I'm all for modern art but the idea that you can take any old thing and then give it some bs about why you did it making it art is utter crap.

as someone said above, picutres paint a thousand words. If you can look at a photo or painting or whatever and it speaks to you great, if you only get the point after the 'artist' has talked rubbish at you for a while then they've missed what they were aiming for and should accept it's a failure.

In reply to Mark Bull:

I like it – I’ve always liked Mark Rothko’s paintings and this is a bit like a photographic version of one of those. Not sure I’d pay £2.7 million for it, though, even if I could. Would probably spend the money on new French windows and a few weeks up north instead.

In reply to Mark Bull:

if i saw it on flickr would jump straight to the next one, as although i did spend some time looking at the beeb site it was trying to figure out what i had missed.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Its the Emperor's new clothes, but with a 10 year old kid taking a photo with dad's compact and getting dad to sell it for millions.

So, is it worth millions because of who took the shot and printed it, rather than on the image's merits alone?

And, I don't even think that it is worth the UKC voting on, let alone get a 2!

In reply to myth:

I thought that too, but it's actually the river banks which aren't horizontal.

In reply to Mark Bull:

Looks like the sort of photo I sometimes take by mistake (once straightened up). Crap basically.

We are all experts.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-in...

In reply to Mark Bull:

You'd think he'd have fixed that while he was in PS.

In reply to Mark Bull:
It's no "Tennis Girl" is it?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Quite right. And for everybody's viewing pleasure.

http://www.lescoob.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/029-012_Tennis-HR_800-7...

In reply to The Lemming:

Quite right. And for everybody's viewing pleasure.

Is that you?

In reply to Mark Bull:


Quite right. And for everybody's viewing pleasure.

sorry.... but i find this image has been way over processed.....lol

In reply to Mark Bull: That takes the piss! £2.7 m for a rubbishly taken, shopped pic that is as dull as ditch water!

In reply to Mark Bull:

Another photo auction for your browsing pleasure -

http://www.bloomsburyauctions.com/auction/35854

In reply to Mark Bull:


Nope.

But, bearing in mind that I did this thread recently

Modern Art is rubbish? http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=481670


I can see some artistic merit in this photo.

I'll try and explain.

The photographer has turned the Rhine - a 766 mile long, organic, powerful, gigantic, unstoppable mass of water, life, industry, business, energy, that has carved it's place in history of the countryside through which it flows - into what is an apparently abstract simple geometric pattern of lines and colours, but is also a fairly regimented pattern, too.

It takes all the power, all the energy, all the fluidity, all the life, all the history, all the mass and all the total wetness out of it, and shows it in a form where none of that is apparent.

He's nullified the Rhine, almost completely.


I'm certainly not going to argue that it's "worth" £2.7m, as that is ridiculous. It does have some artistic "value" though, as I see it, as it has - to my eyes - turned the Rhine into a geometric abstract.

It would be better if it was in B&W though!

In reply to Mark Bull: thats one I'd delete off my camera for being crap

In reply to Dominion:

I saw an interesting comment on this subject today, based upon the prices paid for painting and why people feel the need to 'devalue' photography. Its not called an Art 'Market' for no reason and will have some overall effect on those working within the Fine Art sector. He has produced a formidable body though of work examining Globalism, is certainly influential and rightly so. The actual prints are very finely done and all taken on large format cameras (not the dads instamatic, although he is a second generation photographer) I doubt he will worry much on the UKC vote

One aspect was a spawnage of Neutral colour landscape imagery from a thousand hopefuls!

I do like this phtoographers work http://www.edwardburtynsky.com and if you can get any of his work cheap you will do well later

In reply to RockAngel:

really, thats an expensive delete then

In reply to Removed User:

I'ts not an expensive delete if he's deleting it off his own camera because he's not a pretentious git spouting total crap that can sell his pictures for millions.

In reply to jonathan shepherd:

It isn't actually crap though in the Ratner sense, it is well exposed, well compositioned, edited, highly detailed, thought through and taken on a large format camera! (if that means much) it was also processed through the much more basic software than we we now have and was a step forward in people responding to the Dusseldorf School and it's idealogy.

In reality what people seem to be responding too is, not having seen the original! (I guess) is a web image of a bit of greenery and some water He doesn't actualy have 'that' much control over the market prices (or the internet) lucky as he is, so to lambast him on that point is a bit inane and again brings me back to the more general point of photography not seen by the public as a financially valued (in the same way of painting) product. The concepts being of equally artistic merit dont tend to extropolate in the same financial terms. When it seems they do, it all gets a bit heated. Henry's link above tends to show that affordable photographic art is there but contemporary and current work is subject to 'market' forces. Just like other Art Forms.

I do though understand why people don't get it, he for me has done photography that is more relevent and interesting. Curious that no one has examined Cindy's work in this thread, who was after all the predecessor of the title, we can all take self portraits, can't we

In reply to Mark Bull:
It's certainly one of the least interesting of his shots in my opinion but still rather lovely

In reply to Mark Bull:

Is it actually a photo though?

Post editing (digital or film) should be resticted to adjusting whats available to you on the negative or original file. Once you start removing or adding elements to enhance a photo, you have basically destroyed the basic principle of photography - the joy and skill of capturing a very small moment of time caught uniquely by the "press" of the shutter. Once you start manipulating images, to the extent of removing subject matter that isn't contusive to a nice balanced image, it is no longer photography, it is art.

In reply to MJ:


What about using flash to manipulate images or blow out undesirable backgrounds, or even using a wide aperture to "remove" a distracting background? I'm still not sure where I stand on post processing, but this argument against it makes me think that it is only different by degree to other tools that photographers use....

In reply to MJ:

they are two different things? interesting view

In reply to Removed User: Hi Simon, I was more referring to the way that artists and photographers "explain" their art and photography than to the actual photograph. To me if somethings good it doesn't need any explaining or reasoning for why it was taken or painted, if it's genuinely good i'll look at it and think wow, or similar but at the end of the day this is a very boring photo of some grass, a river, a path and some sky and holds no appeal at all.

In reply to Removed User: Simon, just looked at your webpage and that image on the first page is beautiful, far better to me than the one in this post but will you ever get millions for it, no, and its that that grieves me.

In reply to kieran b:

they are two different things? interesting view

I totally agree with you, a photograph is art.

However, I personally think, that once you start removing or adding elements to a photograph post process it ceases to be a photograph.

In reply to Mark Bull:

FWIW, I find open, flat landscapes quite dramatic. There is a certain underlying malevolence in them that I can't quite put my finger on.

I suspect this one is more about the parallel lines though.

In reply to Mark Bull:

I'm on two minds about his photo...

While i agree with most that this photo is nothing by itself, it does make much more sense when seen in the context of the artist's body of work. http://tinyurl.com/bmplwzv

Most people will recognise a lot of his photos, maybe just not aware that they all belonged to the same person. He has always explored and found geometries and colours from mundane scenes that become somewhat surreal abstract works detached from it's original landscape. This particular photo seems to be a minimalist culmination of his work, achieving the effect he's famous for with the bare minimum of elements.
The (outrageous) money paid is not really for that single photo, but is (maybe symbolically) buying the whole career, evolution and dedication that led to it. Of course, it could just be him having a laugh and conning gullible people a-la Warhol's art factory.

It could be argued that if a yob graffitied this http://tinyurl.com/c4lsrco to the back of your local Tesco, the general consensus would be that it's rubbish and badly made, and would be whitewashed faster than i can get through a self-checkout machine. And that if your average Art student did one of this http://tinyurl.com/2k65fm now for their final year exhibition, few heads would be raised. But it's the concept, originality and vision to have them done that led to these work what gave them the value and masterpiece status few people can argue they deserve. The Cezanne piece in the last link is the perfect example. Something that doesn't strike like anything particularly good, but makes much more sense when seen along these http://tinyurl.com/c53fycg

Of course, a big name, a big wallet, and some healthy speculation will make it achieve a price well beyond what it'd be apparently worth, and sure as hell i wouldn't pay a small country's GDP worth for this photo or any art for that matter.

In reply to Mark Bull:

Yes it one of photos you'd throw away (or delete in these days of digital). That photo is crap.

In reply to jonathan shepherd:

But your deciding on an images merit by the visual aesthetic values alone, and your own 'likes'. Which totally rules out the context or reason behind an image.

For example - if I showed you a B+W picture of some steps that had worn down through use - you may say " so what a pic of some steps" - but if I told you they were at Auschwitz your perception may change.


Contemporary photography is largely about context and ideas based work. When you can marry that with a aesthetic that appears to a broad range of people you are on to a winner.

In reply to Mark Bull: basically, the whole thing's a fking joke

In reply to Mark Bull: well done Dominion for one of the best responses. I like it. He's abstracted the scene really well.
Art is only worth what people want to pay for it.

In reply to Henry Iddon:
Absolutely, no one is ever going give me a reason for liking something, i'll like it on my reasoning and not on somebody elses, as for the auschwitz steps analogy, the fact that they would be steps that prisoners of war had walked up probably before being gassed would be an interesting and poignant additional fact but would not make the photograph any better, they would still just be steps. For me art and photography is a visual thing and always will be.

In reply to jonathan shepherd:



I feel sorry for you.

In reply to Mark Bull:
It's a shit photo but for that price Num Num is going to print a few off and sell them.

In reply to jonathan shepherd:

A world without authorial intent, that's quite a thought

In reply to Mark Bull:

I quite like it's bleak uniformity and sense of absence

However..Christies described it as: 'a dramatic and profound reflection on human existence and our relationship to nature on the cusp of the 21st century'


Bollox

In reply to Mark Bull:

If you don't realise that art is all about context then you will always be baffled by the Turner prize and outraged by stories like this.

It's true that there is an certain appeal to judging a piece of art only on its aesthetics, but you really are missing out on much of the point. And the enjoyment I think. I was never very taken by the work of Manet, for example, until I read up on him and discovered what an upstart he was, which gave me a new appreciation for his paintings.

I respect people's right to ignore the context and judge things solely on first, visual, impressions, but they should know that that's what they're doing. I find all this outrage at contextual art incredibly tedious, and frankly a little embarassing.

For what it's worth, I'm not particularly taken with the photo in question, although as Dominion said it is an interesting distillation of the essence of the Rhine (or at least an attempt to do that). I certainly wouldn't pay millions for it, but then I don't have millions to spend, so that's a moot point.

In reply to Mark Bull:

The emperor has no clothes. Good luck to him for getting away with it.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Christies described it as: 'a dramatic and profound reflection on human existence and our relationship to nature on the cusp of the 21st century'

So, would the image still be worth £2.7M without the description?

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Perhaps i haven't explained myself very well, I don't think for one minute that an author should have no intent when they produce their art, what i'm saying is that for me the intent should be immediately visible in the artwork and require no explanation. There are many contemporary artists out there producing fantastic work with incredible depth and meaning behind them but it's visually readable when you look at it. I get fed up of people producing bland looking stuff that only has any meaning when it's backed up by often pretentious and deliberately over intellectual descriptions of what the artist was feeling at the time he painted/photographed it. At times I feel that its just an attempt to make people feel they have to appreciate and admire the work or they will be seen by their peers as being stupid,unfeeling etc, see Murdsters comment to me above. Having looked at some of Gursky's other work it far outshines this particular work for me, it still shouldn't be worth millions but it's better and more creative none the less. I'm convinced that a (critically acclaimed) artist could just present a blank canvas and if his description and reasoning for the artwork was sufficiently over the top they could get a fortune for it. Obviously the same wouldn't happen to an artist producing the exact same work and description if they weren't already famous, in that case i feel the same critics would describe it as crap which to me is what makes a mockery out of the whole thing.

In reply to jonathan shepherd:

Take it your not a fan of Martin Creed's Turner Prize winning ' Lights Going On and Off'

In reply to Henry Iddon:

I'm not but at least he makes no attempt to explain it in any way, which i do admire. He said this, "I think people can make of it what they like. I don't think it is for me to explain it.

"The thing for me is to try and make things, try and do things and show them to people - that's what I get excited about.

Nice philosophy, I made a cottage pie yesterday, does anyone want to see it, i'm feeling very excited.

In reply to Mark Bull:
Thing is, if Num Num had arrived at the Tate having taken that photo, they would have ejected him forcefully with a polished brogue contacting his anus.

In reply to jonathan shepherd:

Yup often other who try and put context into things. The great Harry Callahan spoke very little about his work.

In reply to jonathan shepherd:

No, I made that comment because I feel sorry for you.

In reply to Dave Hewitt:

Yeah, I saw an exhibition of Gursky's work a few years ago and without any sort of context or highfalutin theory or whatever I was completely blown away by it. It's pretty hard to judge this sort of thing by a crappy image on a screen, though - the impact of the size and clarity and detail is a big part of it.


Well yes, although you could say similar things about professional footballers, ineffective corporate CEOs etc etc...

Its strange that Gursky can command such a high price for such a mediocre photo, but being the son of a commercial photographer he was quite clearly taught well on how to milk the market. Good luck to him if he can fleece those that are daft enough and rich enough to be easily parted with they money.

That's fair point: I believe Rhein II was originally exhibited as one of a series, and the scale will make a difference to its impact.

I personally don't find it terribly inspiring: if I had that sort of cash to splash, give me several Ansel Adams any day.....

In reply to Henry Iddon:

Didn't he once say "You feelin' lucky punk?"?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yup I saw them at the Serpentine Gallery a few years ago - not a huge fan but they are impressive big.

In reply to Mark Bull:

I looked at the picture!!

Looks like the photographer missed the boat ! arf arf

In reply to Bulls Crack:



I think my description at 21:44 Fri was much better, and Christies can use it next time this photo comes on the market, if they pay me £100,000

In reply to Mark Bull:

Oooh 'Uncle Ken' as he's known to many has put the cat amongst the pigeons http://www.petapixel.com/2011/11/14/why-gurskys-photo-of-the-rhine-is-the-w...

In reply to Soren Lorenson:

Love it! Very apt.

In reply to Mark Bull:

Go on you know you want to -

http://www.bukowskis.com/auctions/564?q=photograph

In reply to Henry Iddon:

You any idea how many Michael Kenna calendars I could get for one of them??? A fool and his money.....

In reply to Removed User:

or John Blakemore books

http://www.dewilewispublishing.com/PHOTOGRAPHY/JOHN_BLAKEMORE.html

In reply to Henry Iddon:
Mmmmm... near Christmas, already asked for the McCullin's Southern Frontiers.

In reply to Shonkhor:


I went to art college in the late eighties - anyone with any technical ability was dismissed as a mere technician, whilst the fine artists praised to the high heavens. Apparently the idea and reasoning is more important than the execution.

Example:
(1) man off the street paints a black cube in the top left hand corner of a canvas - worthless.

(2) person from a named art establishment paints the same picture but waxes lyrical about the black cube representig a depressive period in his late teens and the white untouched canvas would be something about sanctury / purity or some such cobblers. This would be priceless...

Art equally big bucks = the ability to talk abou absolute self absorbed pretentious bollocks whilst wearing a chunky knitted jumper with holes in it and making a rollie 'cause it's slighlty anarchist.

I'm convinced that a (critically acclaimed) artist could just present a blank canvas and if his description and reasoning for the artwork was sufficiently over the top they could get a fortune for it.

Didn't some artist produce a series of identically sized blue painted canvases but then went on to sell them for varying amounts based on the amount of thought he had put into each one.

Lets not forget Marcel Duchamp and his found objects - i.e. a bottlerack or a urinal he signed, these became art works because an artist signed them.

In reply to PanzerHanzler: wish i had a pound for everyone id ever heard say "..... i could do that " about some conceptual art. funny how they never do though . (BTW.....id have a about £15)