I read the comments following the article. Apparently the commenters couldn't figure it out either. That said, I guess if you find a market that is willing to pay huge dollars for art - you've got it made in the shade. This isn't his first image to sell for millions. Sigh.
Reminds me of Barnett Newman. I didn't get him either...
As far as the price tag, art has never sold well because it was good. It sells because the artist is famous. Not to say that Gursky's stuff is bad; Just making a general observation of the art market.
Not at all to my liking but I have seen pieces in museums with a blank canvas and a perfect black stripe on the horizon, also if you have the money and want to buy a toilet [remember that] it's your money. I looked at some of his other stuff and I get his concept but over 4 million that's just crazy to me.
Comments
http://www.imagesbyceci.com
http://www.facebook.com/ImagesByCeci
Picadilly, NB, Canada
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Snowgirl .. I'm with you ... Big Sigh.....
www.Dogdotsphotography.com
Vico21, sorry but we speak English on this board. Google translates your post to this:
"Advertising does not surprise me that they have been themselves"
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so maybe you can clarify.
Thanks,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Cowboydoug
Certified Journeyman Commercial Photographer
www.iWasThereToo.com
As far as the price tag, art has never sold well because it was good. It sells because the artist is famous. Not to say that Gursky's stuff is bad; Just making a general observation of the art market.
follow me on: flickr - 500px - twitter