@kimmiesue - My sentiments exactly! The name(s) attached to the the photos certainly hold a stronger influence than the photos themselves (probably the history/story behind it as well).
andreas gursky's photos make more sense when you can place it in the context of his body of work. having said that, the guy is definitely making more $$ than he should. wouldn't it be great to know that everytime you snap the shutter you can make at least 5-6 figures.
I remember reading about Andreas Gursky's Rhine II just after it was sold and squinting at the grainy newspaper print of his photograph and wondering what was so special.
I read this except about it:
The desolate featureless landscape shown in Rhine II is no accident: Gursky explained in an interview that it is his favourite picture: "It says a lot using the most minimal means … for me it is an allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are."
In fact the artist carefully digitally removed any intrusive features – dog walkers, cyclists, a factory building – until it was bleak enough to satisfy him.
Then, later, I read that the copy sold was glass-mounted 350cm x 200cm (80in x 140in) and did a double take. That's MASSIVE! The "desolate & featureless" nature of the photograph must be really moving at that size.... and also so much effort must have gone into very careful editing to remove all the details & make it still look seamless.
Having said all that.... a fair chunk of the price-tag is probably just the because of who the photographer is :)
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I read this except about it:
The desolate featureless landscape shown in Rhine II is no accident: Gursky explained in an interview that it is his favourite picture: "It says a lot using the most minimal means … for me it is an allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are."
In fact the artist carefully digitally removed any intrusive features – dog walkers, cyclists, a factory building – until it was bleak enough to satisfy him.
Then, later, I read that the copy sold was glass-mounted 350cm x 200cm (80in x 140in) and did a double take. That's MASSIVE! The "desolate & featureless" nature of the photograph must be really moving at that size.... and also so much effort must have gone into very careful editing to remove all the details & make it still look seamless.
Having said all that.... a fair chunk of the price-tag is probably just the because of who the photographer is :)