NatureScapes.net Forums

Andreas Gursky's 'Rhine II' sold for $4.3 million at Christie’s.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ardry.html

That sold for 4.3mil?

There is hope for us all yet.

KBatchelor wrote:That sold for 4.3mil?

There is hope for us all yet.

I had the opposite reaction. I had to be talked off the ledge after seeing this last week!

I guess marketing is everything.

Geez . . . . I've been throwing out the wrong images

The investment in the $25 bubble level really paid off for the guy. I'm going to have to work on getting my horizons as straight as he does -- seems to be a huge selling point

Cheers,
Greg

"....But the digitally altered .... He even turned to computer trickery to remove any intrusive features – dog walkers, cyclists, a factory building – until it was bleak enough to satisfy him."

and we worry about a stick, leaf, or branch...I will be checking up on my cloning abilities in PS

I've never sold a print in my life. Now i see what i'm doing wrong!

Connor Stefanison wrote:I've never sold a print in my life. Now i see what i'm doing wrong!

Yup...you tried too hard

I think that was shot with an iPhone 3GS.

must be a joke.

I must have deleted a trillion dollars in sales already....sigh.

I saw that a few days ago. Usually such prices are reserved for paintings and not photographs. I'm happy for the artist, that he's managed a level of recognition as to command such commercial value for his work. If we doodled on a restaurant napkin, nothing more would be thought of it. If Picasso doodled on a napkin, many would be dumpster diving to retrieve it. Could be worth hundreds of thousands or perhaps more. Not in any way trying to denigrate anyones work but only stating the obvious, the value of a work of art is not so much the content but the name behind it.

A 1967 acrylic on canvas by American painter Barnett Newman sold for $1.8 million. I recall the big controversy when the National Art Gallery announced its purchase.

http://popartmachine.com/artwork/2017-N ... -print.jpg

I think I will take a photograph of the photograph and sell it for $8 million.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um74DKYlta8

Hey Folks,

Better yet, for 10% of that price, you can buy this:

Cheers

Carl

Neil Fitzgerald wrote:must be a joke.

His photograph titled 99cents sold for "$3,346,456 on February 2007, Sotheby's London auction. A second print of 99 Cent II Diptychon sold for $2.48 million in November 2006 at a New York gallery, and a third print sold for $2.25 million at Sotheby's in May 2006."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... hotographs

Here's the photograph in case you haven't seen it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:99_ce ... by%27s.jpg

ok... if this is what it takes to make it big.... then I just want to be small time. Holy cow.

I wanted to capture a desolate but accurate image... Digitally manipulated until it is as bleak enough to satisfy me...

Now who's going to open the bidding

Are you sure you weren't photographing North Dakota in Februrary?

I want to look through his trash. Could be some gems in there.