We aren't the people he's selling to. It is quite possible (likely, even) that a large majority of the folks buying his work don't even really like it. They are buying it because 1) they can, 2) they want to tell other people that they own a Gursky, 3) there isn't much traditional work around to buy anymore, and 4) it's big, and big is better, right? He seems to work in a similar way to Chihuly; he *envisions* the photograph, and *designs* the photograph, but a large portion of the work is done by other folks: the stitching, photoshop work, printing, presentation (possibly even the photographs, too, though I have no proof of that). It's a nice gig if you can get it. I don't fault him at all; he has an idea, and gets it done. I don't happen to like the work very much, but it sells, and lets him drive a Maserati. Good for him. Andrew On Sat, November 12, 2011 7:25 pm, Trevor Cunningham wrote: > 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-phot >>> o/ >>> >>> "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-1578 >>> 808.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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > >
