197 replies to this topic

[joemcbroom.com]

Can someone please help me understand?

http://theonlinephot...-christies.html

http://www.christies...47-a34df7ccfc96

Edited by Joemc, 18 February 2012 - 18:00 .

[RC51]

I have no opinion on the value but the image is superb.

Cheers

[davepaterson]

Photographs indistinguishable from family snaps, given the status of very high art - I don't get Eggleston either.

[Eb Mueller]

Can't help you, Joe! I have no idea what turns people on enough to spend 100 to 150M on this image! I suppose one buys it hoping that in a few years one can flip it, for a profit, to an even greater fool!

Edited by Eb Mueller, 18 February 2012 - 18:27 .

[Ann]

I have no admiration for Eggleston but a previous MOMA Director promoted him extensively and no-one apparently has ever had the guts to draw the parallels to a certain nude emperor!

No Museum or Gallery curator is ever going to burst the bubble of the value of his Collection either.

[simato73]

Real art can fetch silly and possibly obscene prices - after all how can you give a monetary value to something that is unique and priceless - but here what I fail to understand is: should this be considered sublime art worth such a ridiculous price (obviously to me the answer is no...).

If one actually does not care about the intrinsic (artistic) properties of this work, but just considers it an investment, then it is a completely different matter.
Although I doubt this is a good investment. There is a high risk that one day everyone will open their eyes and declare that the Emperor is naked, and the investor be stuck with a very expensive piece of coloured paper portraying somebody's granny.

PS: Ann stole my thunder on the Emperor...

PPS: On second thoughts, maybe Ann is right and the risk is not high after all... Not if too many important galleries have too much invested in this "art".

Edited by simato73, 18 February 2012 - 18:48 .

[nfoto]

Very simple, Joe: if you need to ask then you don't understand ... or so the proponents of the circular definition of art claim. 'Circular' because something is art if an artist (or a curator) claims it is art. Back that with monetary interests and investments and you get an ironclad system.

[joemcbroom.com]

Very simple, Joe: if you need to ask then you don't understand ... or so the proponents of the circular definition of art claim. 'Circular' because something is art if an artist (or a curator) claims it is art. Back that with monetary interests and investments and you get an ironclad system.

Bjorn.... I agree with you 1000%.... But what is hazy is what "properties" of the image make it sooooo valuable?.. Is it the subject mater? The composition? the exposure?, The DOF, .... Just what is it?

I understand that anything is worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.... You do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that..... But my question is what makes this image worth the money that they are asking.....other than the fact that someone will pay their price?

[Elsa Hoffmann]

I am absolutely with Bez

I have no opinion on the value but the image is superb.

[Rags]

I don't see it.(the value)

It's hard to pick apart a piece that is considered art. Is this any better or worst than a Renaissance painting of an ugly wife of a wealthy merchant?

See this and have the curator call it "fine" art. There's an American word for this (it's bullsh**t)

These pieces are purchased by folks who have so much disposable income that we, as commoners (the 99%?) can't phantom why

That said, the image has impact, it's just the absurd value attached

Rags

[Bart Willems]

Modern Art = “i could have done that” + “Yeah but you didn't”

[Airy]

It is a good picture (sharp if we may judge from the reduced size, nice vivid colors, not so dull background, and a lady more interesting than on most magazine covers). Does not really tell a story, would be more significant if it were part of a series.

The price ? uncorrelated. Stock exchange and art galleries share the same (ir)rationality ; I do not know which is worst.

BTW I like Bart's definition !

Edited by Airy, 18 February 2012 - 19:45 .

[kskeie]

I'm with Elsa and Bez, Big time Eggleston fan. Put his composition, or color composition, in the perspective of the history of photography and it starts to make sense. I am perhaps slightly more pusseled by Andreas Gursky's Rhine II, at over 4 million dollars.. But then again, there are loots of art work at outrages prices.

[Bart Willems]

But my question is what makes this image worth the money that they are asking.....other than the fact that someone will pay their price?

But that is the very definition of price: what the market is willing to bear (those of you that are selling pictures for godsakes learn the difference between cost, price and value).

And of course the fact that it is “a” Egglestone. For the same reason that a 17^th century picture attributed to a Master is worth millions, but when it turns out to be painted “only” by one of his pupils (or even better, a 20^th century fake) it's all of a sudden only worth a few thousand tops. Did the picture change? No. Just as with camera gear -- when it has “Nikon” or “Canon” on it gets taken serious but when it has “Sony” on it we don't -- we pay ridiculous attention to “who made it” without caring about the actual quality.

[Bart Willems]

I am perhaps slightly more pusseled by Andreas Gursky's Rhine II, at over 4 million dollars.. But then again, there are loots of art work at outrages prices.

And that proves how art evokes different reactions. See, Gursky's work I can see why it's getting the prices it demands. Then again I'm more familiar with Gursky's oeuvre, I've seen his magnificent photo's in a museaum and I feel like, as empty as it look, Rhine II does look like he took some effort into finding “the right spot” and waiting for the right time. Egglestone's work might be just as elaborate but it just doesn't evoke that reaction to me.

[wildoat]

I know how I define art, this certainly isn't it but I wasn't the silly bugger
paying the asking price, lol.

More money than sense maybe but who am I to judge

Perhaps Elsa or Bez could tell us why it means so much to them and
why they consider it art, that's not being critical as they are obviously entitled
to their opinions but it would be interesting to hear how it makes them feel!

Tony

Edited by wildoat, 18 February 2012 - 20:53 .

[kskeie]

"Rhine II does look like he took some effort into finding “the right spot” and waiting for the right time. " In fact, i agree with you Bart, Gursky is a wonderful artist, his pictures must be experienced in a museum to really be appreciated. 4 million is a lot of money though.. But then again, 250 million for a Cézanne is even more.. Art is a worthy currency and value should be created based on demand.

[RC51]

Perhaps Elsa or Bez could tell us why it means so much to them and
why they consider it art, that's not being critical as they are obviously entitled
to their opinions but it would be interesting to hear how it makes them feel!
Tony

Personally I don't call a photograph art so that or the valuation is not a consideration to me.

The image says to me....... The lady looks like she comes from old money, she sits with deportment on a lounger that would make most people slouch. The expensive garden lounger has seen better days which implies the old money is running out, emphasised by the collapsing fence.

So for me it is a excellent portrait of an interesting subject.

Cheers

[wildoat]

Personally I don't call a photograph art so that or the valuation is not a consideration to me.

The image says to me....... The lady looks like she comes from old money, she sits with deportment on a lounger that would make most people slouch. The expensive garden lounger has seen better days which implies the old money is running out, emphasised by the collapsing fence.

So for me it is a excellent portrait of an interesting subject.

Cheers

Quite bizarre, I honestly had very similar thoughts!

Still not worth the asking price but hey, each to their own!

[Rags]

Personally I don't call a photograph art so that or the valuation is not a consideration to me.

The image says to me....... The lady looks like she comes from old money, she sits with deportment on a lounger that would make most people slouch. The expensive garden lounger has seen better days which implies the old money is running out, emphasised by the collapsing fence.

So for me it is a excellent portrait of an interesting subject.

Cheers

Good see Bez...

A WWII era stylish gal sitting on a 2 up rocker w exposed springs & everybody seemed to smoke (it was stylish)

Rags