Most expensive photograph in the world

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2011/11/most-expensive-photo-world/44772/

Why don't my royalty cheques look like this? :)

Baffling.

While I don't think the photography skills are all that, I sure do respect the marketing skills...

A fool and his money are soon parted!

Gee, I have one similar to this I'd let go for $500,000.
Sandy

No accounting for taste. This image does nothing for me. Talk about sick.

Well, I'm just confused????

If that photo is worth 4.3 million then there are photos in the galleries here that should be selling for $100,000,000 easy.

Bruce

Why is Andreas Gursky's Rhine II the most expensive photograph?

Who benefits when a photographic print has had such a value placed on it?

Things like this are the reason why the word "Art" has no meaning any more. You can basically delete it from any dictionary.

Wow, this went here quickly. I was just about to make a post on this.

Here is another link (please copy paste)

http://www.moma.org/collection/browse_results.php?criteria=O%3AAD%3AE%3A7806&page_number=11&template_id=1&sort_order=1

In the description it reads that the photographer "removed" industrial building visible in the original scene. It means that in order for him to achieve this "stunning essential composition, reduced to geometric forms" , it was required to "clean up" the scene significantly. I think it is this fact that makes me a bit angry. Nothing against cloning as such. But in this case, it seems that the simple composition, dominated by bold geometric forms, was only possible by eliminating every tiny distraction.

The composition and concept as such is probably a matter of taste. Very different from what we like to see here on NPN. I will admit that when viewed in full size, it might unfold some impact.

The photographer holds a professorship in art by the way.

This rubbish is not photography. Hmm ... I have a photo or two of the Esopus Meadows Lighthouse on which I can photoshop the lighthouse out of the picture, use a couple of sliders (saturation, etc.) to weirdify the image a bit; wonder how much I could sell it for... It would look something like this guy's "work."

The "ART" world is a very peculiar animal, very inbred and more about the artist and prestige than the images he/she creates. My university degree is in fine art but when I was in college a professor of photography told my work wasn't as good as his 1st semester students who just picked up a camera for the first time. This was after I had graduated from two schools of photography, NYI and the Army Signal Center & School, and had taught at the latter as well as worked as a photographer for several years. His complaint? My photographs weren't esoteric enough. I needed to be deliberately vague and mysterious. I should avoid being clear what my intent was and then explain my work in what can only be called "art speak", an equally vague and rambling dissertation involving some convoluted set of ideas to be delivered in a gallery talk or printed in an exhibition catalog. I tried playing that game briefly and felt like a total poser. Sometimes when I see prices like that however... I wish I weren't so honest.

Jim hit the nail squarely on the head. And should one express bafflement (i.e. "What's the brouhaha about this painting or that photograph? It seems so unremarkable to me"), in the manner stated in this thread--opinions I share, not incidentally--prepare to be greeted by (hopefully polite) condescension from the cognoscenti. It's usually expressed in the form of "you poor philistine," followed by the pseudo "inside baseball" arcane babble that Jim appropriately titled "art speak." I've always found that the best response--if one feels the need to make any reply at all--is to mutter something about the emperor's new clothes and move on.

There are fewer things easier to satirize than the art world. In fact, the Telegraph piece linked above is a baby step away from something one might find on The Onion.

I think I need to review my pricing structure!!

Call me Mr. Cynical, but I smell money laundering. Has anything been reported about the purchaser?

Some peoples taste should just stay in their mouth

Something tells me this wouldn't get overly great critiques in here.

This can't be "ART". He should Google "rule of thirds"

If nothing else, this is a commentary on developing a personal style that is unique. I am as dismayed of the oversaturated grand landscapes typical of Outdoor Photography magazine as I am of this. There is a middle ground.

Jack, i dunno--it has three sections on the bottom, and three within that three--pretty cool!

I personally wouldn't buy this even if i could afford 1/100000 of it, either as investment, money laundering or whatever...

BUT....i still think we should take a jpeg of this with "4.3 million" in bold red watermarked on top, then put it on permanent display on top of the Landscape Gallery as a constant reminder that we as a species value individuality.

I must say I am quite baffled by some of the sentiments expressed in this thread, especially since they are coming from photographers who consider themselves to be artists.

If I'd taken this I'd have probably deleted it...

"I must say I am quite baffled by some of the sentiments expressed in this thread, especially since they are coming from photographers who consider themselves to be artists. "

Aha the cognoscenti! Do elucidate?

I don't like it but that's just because Im a philistine If some poor fool is silly enough to pay that much for that then more power to them.