Oh, he's a nice guy and not very pretentious. Let me get my checkbook.
Art is a market...if there is demand for a product at millions of
dollars, it is worth millions. This is the limit of economic logic.
On 11/13/11 2:12 AM, Andrew Sharpe wrote:
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
