highest price got higher: 4.3 million for Andreas Gursky's work

[HLing]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[jsrockit]

Crazy money! Must be nice to be Gursky...

[Steve M.]

I saw that. Never heard of the guy.

As usual, he'll never see a penny of it. Just another example of how truly out of whack the world is.

[shadowfox]

4.3 million for a photograph of what?

[swoop]

Looks a lot like the supermarket photo that was the previous title holder in terms of composition. I guess horizontal bands are in.

It's worthless to cut down the photo. Someone obviously loved it. Which proves like all art, the appeal is very subjective.

[oftheherd]

I saw that on the news this morning. I don't remember ever hearing of him either. But if he gets a good chunk of that, good for him.

[Out to Lunch]

http://http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/everywhere-you-look-theres-always-a-gursky.html

Gursky

[Corto]

Originally Posted by swoop

Looks a lot like the supermarket photo that was the previous title holder in terms of composition. I guess horizontal bands are in.

It's worthless to cut down the photo. Someone obviously loved it. Which proves like all art, the appeal is very subjective.

Yeah, Thats for sure.

I personally can not wrap my head around it........

[jsrockit]

What's Gursky thinking? Doesn't he know that the money is in test shots, 100% crops, cats, backs of people, and kids?

[celluloidprop]

I'm surprised Gursky is still holding the auction records - I first heard of him circa 2000, when his mural-sized prints were something of an oddity compared to today.

He also seems like the kind of photographer where you'd need to see a large body of his work at once to really get the scope of what he's doing - to, uh, 'feel it.' Kinda like seeing one Rothko alone vs. the Rothko Chapel.

And remember, it wasn't his print being sold at auction, so he probably doesn't get a piece at all.

[HLing]

Originally Posted by celluloidprop

I'm surprised Gursky is still holding the auction records - I first heard of him circa 2000, when his mural-sized prints were something of an oddity compared to today.

He also seems like the kind of photographer where you'd need to see a large body of his work at once to really get the scope of what he's doing - to, uh, 'feel it.' Kinda like seeing one Rothko alone vs. the Rothko Chapel.

And remember, it wasn't his print being sold at auction, so he probably doesn't get a piece at all.

That's interesting that Gursky might not get the money..though maybe he got some initially when the print was made?

Interesting thought about having a "Gursky chapel" though. It could be build with bricks of his captured images...

On another tangent, this 1999 piece (which happens to have green in it) is now going to be, in my mind, the nicest looking 4-million dollar-bill if ever there is one... (how high do they go anyway? $1000 bills? shows you my financial limits here )