Better that Rhein II...?

Brian Moore

Brian Moore

Moderator
Well,...to someone it is at least more valuable than Rhein II was to someone else.

For a few weeks here on RPF several of us had some fun poking fun at Andreas Gursky's Rhein II when it sold for 4 million a few years ago to become the world's most expensive photo.
http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gursky-the-rhine-ii-p78372

At the time I did not appreciate Rhein II. I'm not sure I fully appreciate it even now. But I can say I appreciate it more today, recognizing now that Rhein II was a step along a Gursky continuum.

Now comes news that Rhein II's selling price has been eclipsed by a photo from Austrian photographer Peter Lik. His photo "Phantom" has sold for 6.5 million. http://petapixel.com/2014/12/10/peter-lik-print-sells-6-5-million-shattering-record-expensive-photo/

Is Lik's Phantom deserving of a higher selling price than Gursky's Rhein II? Is it a better photograph?
 
Brian I remember many a good argument about value an worth with friends of art. My stance always was you cannot take one image one piece of art in isolation. It does not work that way for me. An artists life story how they arrived at that point idea or whatever, nee to be a part of , when considering value. Although yes often absurd the value but that is not the artists fault, the system gives it it's value, the world of futures and speculation as buying coffee beans.
Many though do value these works not from monetary value and that is real value.
Is one worth more than another in the arena that values it depends on who'm purchases it as much as anything else. If certain institutions or persons purchase it the value will rise because of their credentials. A bit of a game really which aught not to take away the value these things can be to an individual viewer.
 
No.
Especially as the colour version also sold for loads of cash.
Maybe I'm just being a fuddy, but it strikes me a photo should either be colour or b&w.
 
Leaving aside the issue of value or worth (and the relativity of the figures), I am with Hamish on this. The image should represent the artist's vision. In this case that appears to have been a vision of radiant colour. Creating a mono version seems a bit redundant and in my opinion works no where near as well. Also, although I am not a great fan of the work of Gursky, at least there is a progression of his art. I see only a (very good) landscape photographer in Peter Lik. Many of the scenes he captures have been taken by many other landscape photographers and hold nothing 'special' for me.
 
Pete Askew said:
although I am not a great fan of the work of Gursky, at least there is a progression of his art.
Click to expand...
I agree, Pete. Although, having said that I have a growing appreciation of Gursky. Granted, Rhein II is hard to "get," and this applies also to other works of his that might be considered more approachable. But his work, bland and repetitive though it may seem, makes us think. For me on the other hand, there is nothing thought-provoking about Phantom. Its a carefully crafted yet also (in my opinion) lucky snap shot.
 
peter lik is a master of marketing and i see this as no different.... the person buying it clearly has paid a certain amount for 'the label'.
I've looked at a lot of his photos and he's all about colour and light so this B&W seems weird to me... but hey he got all that money in his pocket so good luck to his.... as I say, marketing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Len Philpot
My other hobby - Astronomy
Replies
12
Views
705
Len Philpot
Len Philpot
Back
Top