Does anybody understand why this photo is worth so much?

How about the Johnny Rotten grafitti/images on the wall of the apartment used by the Sex Pistols?
I think it should be kept as a reminder of the social change within the music industry and society of 1977 /78.
I would pay a couple of quid to see it.

If the person who purchased this in the first place, decided to sell it, do you think they would get their original purchase price back?. I for one doubt it.

Jim.

Lincoln .7

PeeDee.

Are you sure you’ve got enough variety in your life ? One hour looking at “Marvellous Mersey Mud”. Blimey ! I’m impressed. Good alliteration if nothing else.

I’m not surprised ‘nobody else thought of it’.

John Green

No, if I go into a Gallery (Especially if I had to pay…which is not many) then I commit to the time.

What is the artist saying, why has he (she) given it that title, what don’t I like or what impresses me.
But then, and I find this an important bit, if I don’t like it I try and establish why I don’t, what wavelength isn’t blending, is it because I have some baggage in my head etc. (With the veto on stuff which is disturbing (to me) like aforementioned)
“If you can’t change something then change your attitude about it”.
I adore the Concorde and the Mosquito (There is another element working here because “Beautiful machinery” appeals to both sides of the brain, the Engineering mastery and the visual beauty) but I think the A380 is butt ugly (but still a masterpiece of engineering).

I could EASILY spend 2 or 3 hours walking around Concorde and under it. I spent 2 hours around and in the Vulcan at Newark.

Don’t forget those like me (Engineer, by the way) that haven’t expressed an opinion either way! 😉

And aren’t pilots supposed to be ‘left-siders’?

Sorry, I’ve mixed me brains up. Yes, Starboard of head is creative.

I’m sure (Pilots) some are, but the procedural rigour in their daily life indicates that out of the box brainstorming is not a natural trait.

PeeDee.

Are you sure you’ve got enough variety in your life ? One hour looking at “Marvellous Mersey Mud”. Blimey ! I’m impressed. Good alliteration if nothing else.

I’m not surprised ‘nobody else thought of it’.

John Green

…the thread has gone as expected for this particular population, it’s me n Arthur versus the your World.

Don’t forget those like me (Engineer, by the way) that haven’t expressed an opinion either way! 😉

And aren’t pilots supposed to be ‘left-siders’?

Ah well.
An aeroplane forum will, by the very best laws of 80/20 stereotyping, contain more of it’s fair share of Engineers/geeks/spotters/pilots. “Right siders”, practical minded – where black is black and white is white and the grey areas are avoided because there is no definition or classification. “Left siders”, on an art forum for example would give a totally different view so the sweeping statement that “It’s all rubbish” is inward looking.
So, the thread has gone as expected for this particular population, it’s me n Arthur versus the your World.
Shaking head and moving on is, IMO, odd behavior because presumably you went into the gallery in the first place?
If I see something I do not understand put in front of me as “art” then I try and see what the message is, I cannot dislike art because it cannot hurt me. I can totally disaprove (The Myra Hindly picture made of childs handprints) but, when one sees the difficulty of producing the image one has to admire the quality.
The matchstick works of LS Lowry could be bought for pin-money in the 70’s, but once he died (76?) the prices went beyong mortgages, and people that would never have considerd owning one were now showing off they had one.
To assume artists need some level of formal training is wrong on all levels IMO. An art Historian would do, an art critic may need some, but an artist can come from anywhere, and that’s what keeps it fresh.

This particualr photograph, I could stare at for a while and enjoy it. A masterpiece of simplicity.
I studied / stared at “Mersey Mud” for an hour at the L/pool Tate. 100 feet long, 15 feet high, totally Brown, totally made of Mersey mud. Masterpiece? Well, there wasn’t a blemish in it, not a single shade of brown that was off, not a patch that had dried faster than another etc. Not only was it clever, but NOBODY ELSE THOUGHT OF IT.

OK forget the price for a moment , I have been thinking about the reaction this photograph has caused both here and with friends I have asked in person. The first thing is very few people including myself get. So overall its something that apprieciated by the minority, so its appeal is limited but not in my view elitist, more obscure really.

For me the reason that is does not appeal is it does not hold the attention, involve you or give you any emotional response, For me even if I don’t like something by Dali, Picasso etc those artists managed to trigger an emotion of some sort and not one of total dismissal, So if this photo was meant to be a non emotional thing look at it and move on I sort of get it and lets be honest its created a lot of debate.

For me its the lift music of photos its there but you have no great urge to be involved in it.

It would appear that anything can be called art and good luck if you can get that sort of money from people with more money than sense for a bland, boring could be anywhere photograph.

You share my opinion of it Flygirl “utter crap” and that is being generous.

As taken from the BBC website

“An image of the Rhine by German artist Andreas Gursky has fetched $4.3m (£2.7m) at Christie’s New York, setting an auction record for a photograph”

Can anyone understand why it is worth so much?, I have been looking at it and I have to say I do not get the appeal of it at all, I am not professional but do take a lot of photos and I guess he has worked hard with photoshop etc, but I still don’t get it.

Am I a heathen? or is this just not for the likes of me?

Have a look heres the BBC link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15689652

Nope! utter crap ……

Stretching the debate slightly to illustrate my point, a worryingly clear majority of university students elect to study ‘soft subjects’ so as to cushion their way thru’ uni and obtain what is seen as an easy degree. Where is the value both to themselves and to society in that?

I’ll agree with you there; where is the country heading if we produce more ‘media’ graduates each year than the combined number of medical, engineering and science graduates?

Not that I’m necessarily knocking ‘media’ courses (except the really silly ones) but what good is it if there is a vast surplus of media graduates chasing every media job; it only pushes their collective salaries down (which are probably artificially high anyway) and leads to a lot of them being unemployed and saddled with a huge student debt.

Thank you for clarifying your statements. I understand exactly where you’re coming from now.

“Thin end of the wedge” is the aphorism used to indicate ‘more of the same’ eg. the continuous and popular ‘dumbing down’ so acceptable to-day.

“Gradations of individual boredom’ is used in reference to the fixed glazed stare of spectators standing in front of a piece of modern art while trying to figure out what, if anything, it means. While other onlookers such as myself, pause, look, shake their head and move on uncomprehendingly.

I do try to use plain English sentences, with the usual sprinkling of verbs, nouns, adjectives and subordinate clauses. I apologise if occasionally my meaning is obscure.

John Green

Your second sentence reminds me of how variable are the gradations of individual boredom.

John Green

Once again, you’ll have to explain that one to me.

You didn’t explain why those of us with opinions you don’t share are the “thin end of the wedge”

I suspect I know what you mean but I think you should clarify.

I don’t suppose you will though.

Your second sentence reminds me of how variable are the gradations of individual boredom.

John Green

I’m sorry but you were the one who made the generalization that rubbished modern art. All I’m saying is that some exponents of modern art do not fall into your generalization.
To me, a picture does not have to be “of” anything; it can be an abstract, full of colour, shape and texture. It doesn’t have any less merit as a work of art in my view.

Well done for selecting four of the least contentious artists in terms of their ability to move from modern art to proper art. I would call them ‘crossover’ artists; able to move rather seamlessly from colourful trivia to real representative art without compromising their artistic reputation. All of which perhaps proves that in addition to their personal talent and aptitude they had more than likely attended art school and at the very least learned to draw.

John Green

Such a sweeping generalization of modern art is to deny such as Dali, Picasso, Matisse, Munch etc. their place as proper artists. I don’t think that their work could be described as “frothy, non serious, light hearted and trivial”

Yes Arthur, that is exactly right. There “needs to be talent” and after all art is art according to interpretation. No one should be so dogmatic about art as to lay down what is acceptable or un-acceptable.

But, I suggest that by mass common consent, traditional art is accepted as just that – with all its attendant rigorous training and application. Modern art is something entirely different – frothy, non serious, light hearted and trivial. Requiring nothing in the way of training other than the willingness to arrange silly, colourful, two or three dimensional shapes in some incoherent display that renders the perpetrator open not only to ridicule but also to riches beyond the dreams of Croesus because of the stupidity of some of the public.

John Green

Isn’t that elitist?

No, it isn’t.
Of course there needs to be talent but by constraining what constitutes art can back it elitist. There is much modern art that I struggle to see the point of but that shouldn’t stop anyone from having a go at doing what they want with a particular art-form.
Who are we to restrict artists and their work?