Here's a short (about 23 minutes) video about Gursky. To be honest, I hadn't heard of him before. I should feel sheepish, but I don't. Anyway, he actually does sound like a nice guy; not nearly as pretentious as some of his work seems to be. http://vimeo.com/17692722 Andrew On 11/11/2011 08:25 PM, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote: > > http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2011/11/really-4-3-million-for-that-photo/ > > "A gallery professional, who asked not to be named for concern over > adverse professional repercussions, thinks the price is a bit of a > farce. He says he's noticed a growing trend where photographers are > working hard to re-brand themselves as "artists" so they can sell their > pieces in the higher-priced fine art markets that don't traditionally > trade in photography. This sale, he said, smacks of that change. > While he tries to take a balanced approach and realize that any sale of > this kind has the potential to reflect positively on the medium of > photography, he also said it's important to call a spade a spade and > avoid turning photography into something it's not." > > Interesting that Pollock is mentioned > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html > > > > hmm > > I still maintain "art" as the term stands in common usage is an > abreviation of the term "a work of art" .. and that the real meaning of > the word art is the craft/skill of the person making stuff.. mind you, > some segments of society have accepted a lot of stuff made by the > artless as 'art'. > > I doubt many would see the product of gutting fish skillfully as 'art'. > > > it seems this gallery professional lies in the later camp. > > > k > > > > > -- http://andrewsharpe.com
