These are the top 2 most expensive photographs ever sold. The first image is by Andreas Gursky of Germany. This image entitled '99 Cent II Diptychon' is THE most expensive photograph ever sold. It was first sold in 2006 and grossed $2.25 and $2.48 in 2 seperate auctions in New York City in that year. In 2007, the image was sold for the highest amount yet and the highest that a single photograph has ever sold for..... $3.34 million!!!
What are your thoughts on this image and the crazy price that it was sold for?
The second highest grossing image, is by Luxembourgish pictorialist photographer Edward Steichen in 1904 entitled, 'The Pond--Moonlight'. There are only 3 images of the negative that exist in the world. It was one of the first images to be printed in colour. It was sold for it's highest at US$2.9 million in February of 2006.
Personally, I am more drawn to the film imagey of Edward Steichen above, but I am more interested in raw film with all of it's flaws and beauty rather than the crisp, perfectly constructed 99 cent image. I am just curious, what you guys think of these 2 highest grossing images and the crazy amounts of money some rich art fanatics paid for them?!
I don't even think there are 3.34 million items in that store haha. What confuses me more is how simple it is and yet its worth so much. I just don't see how. What's stopping me from going to Woolies, taking a photo and slapping a 3 million dollar price tag on it? Either I can't see what's so good about it or the person that bought it has too much free time.
ReplyDeleteBut your right on the second image. While I can't justify someone spending that much it does catch my attention more than the 99 cent store image. While it might not have that new modern high quality look to it, you can feel that sort of rawness that you can only get from using film.
My two cents worth.
I think the first one really is documenting a time and place in our culture. Perhaps one day as a society we'll look back on that image and find it hard to believe places like that ever really existed. I appreciate it from that perspective. Is it worth $3.34 million, well obviously to someone it is but I don't reckon I'd want it hanging on my wall!
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to Gursky, his canvases are huge, so it may be difficult to appreciate the scale of and detail in his work when viewing a 72ppi RGB file. And there's more in his first image than just supermarket shelves; not only is there meticulous (cut n paste) composition, there's also commentary. I wouldn't pay $3.34 million to hang it on my walls, but if I could get a 'domestic' sized print, for a domestic-sized price, I'd be tempted.
ReplyDelete