Remember about six months ago when I showed you what the most expensive photograph in the world looked like? (See: The World’s Most Expensive Photograph is Very Orange and Slightly Overpriced) Well, we have a new reigning champion. Feast your eyes on the photo that fetched $4.3 million dollars:
Because your brain is still trying to process such a ludicrous claim, let me repeat that this photo recently sold at auction for $4.3 million. Dollars. Four point three million dollars.
It took me awhile to process too. But I think I get it now: They’re just messing with us.
Pretentious Art Connoisseurs™ realize that the public is unshockable. Sure, moralistic prudes like me still get the vapors when confronted with, say, Mapplethorpe’s shots of unlikely-objects-in-unlikely-orifices or Andres Serrano’s bodily-fluids-and-blasphemy photos. But that stuff came out in the late 1980s. We were so naive back then that we though Madonna singing “Like a Virgin” was racy. Now, in an era when a third-rate Madonna-wannabe has to wear a meat dress to get attention, we’re nonplussed by ArtLand hijinks. We may feign outrage, of course, but the truth is we sorta expect that the the Cultural Elites™ will try to get our goat. We just play along because that’s our role.
But the photography branch of the Art World is comprised of clever souls. They realized that to truly shock us requires paying obscene amounts of money for work that exhibits no discernible talent. Take another look at the picture above. Your first thought was likely, “I can’t tell an F-stop from F-Troop but even I could have taken that picture.” Indeed, you could. And that’s the point.
In a world filled with world-class photographers, technical virtuosity isn’t enough to set the artisan apart from the amateur. Even the most Pretentious Art Critic™ can’t slather on enough Theory to make the case that Gursky’s work is artistically superior to your average shutterbug. Put “Rhein II” up against “Jogging Path by the Lake at Dusk” by the overly serious girl in Photography 101 and you’d be hard pressed to tell which was by the famed artist. What sets Gursky apart from the provinicals is that he has patrons willing to pay millions for his boring photos. That’s really all that makes him unique. And that is how the art world (photography division) found a fresh way to annoy us.
Propping up Gursky as the poster-boy for overpriced photos may be the world’s most expensive practical joke. On the list of “Most Expensive Photos of All-Time” he not only holds the #1 spot but also the #3, #4, and# 5 too. And all of those were for the same photo.
Paying the equivalent of Zimbabwe’s Gross National Product for any photo would seem obscene. Paying that amount for such a bland picture is practically pornographic—which makes the auction an ingeniously subversive act. At a time when even Puritans are bored by sex and blasphemy, the surest way to shock and appall is show disdain for the idol of Monetary Value.
November 10th, 2011 | 9:34 am
Think we’ll see an “Occupy Christie’s” movement?
November 10th, 2011 | 9:36 am
Actually, I don’t get the exorbitant salaries paid to people in the financial industry either. The photograph has one advantage: you can look at it. It makes a room pretty.
Joe, I’m afraid your post fails to grasp basic economics. An item is worth precisely what a person is willing to pay for it. Not more. Not less. An incompetent budger who trashes his company will get eight or even nine figures.
At best, you can compare boards of directors to art collectors.
November 10th, 2011 | 10:04 am
Mr. Carter, are you suggesting that the Christies auction where the photo was sold was somehow “fixed”? If you believe that a conspiracy of “Cultural Elites” colluded to artificially drive up the price at auction, then perhaps you should contact Scotland Yard.
Who are these “Cultural Elites” (AKA, “Pretentious Art Connoisseurs”, “clever souls” of the “Art World”)? Can you name five? Can you name three?
How exactly do THEY artificially inflate auction prices of works of art in their quest to offend bourgeois sensibilities?
November 10th, 2011 | 10:12 am
I looked at the Christie’s link. It’s not just a photograph, it’s a huge photograph over six feet wide. And there’s more, it’s “face mounted” on plexiglass. Most important, the artist’s signature is included in the lot. Maybe that is what costs so much. The new owner is paying for the artist’s celebrity and can prove it. Why is the artist celebrated? Clearly, because he is rich.
November 10th, 2011 | 10:23 am
A photograph is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it. As with any work of art, it is not the mere image that has value. If a painting of uncertain provenance is studied and definitively attributed to Rembrandt, it increases in value. If a painting thought to have been by Rembrandt is discovered to be merely “school of Rembrandt,” its value goes down. It’s the very same painting no matter who painted it, so why should its value fluctuate? Because works of art have whatever monetary value people choose to pay for them.
If bidders at an auction bid the price of a painting up to $4.3 million, then that photo is worth $4.3 million. That’s free-market capitalism, which I thought Joe Carter believed in. And as I understand his position on income inequality, he sees no problem with some people being able to pay $4.3 million dollars for a photograph he considers worthless while other people can’t afford food.
By the way, I have always liked Madonna as a performer, but Lady Gaga has a much better voice. She can really sing, and I think years from now she may very well be look upon as the greater talent.
November 10th, 2011 | 10:27 am
The point is not that you could have taken those pictures; the point is that you didn’t.
Art, whether good or bad, requires you to actually make something, not say that you could have made something. The sacraments don’t exist in abstract; we participate in them only in and through the “stuff” of this world, through bread and wine and water. Art works in similar fashion, and “technical virtuosity” has very little to do with anything.
If you had seen the same scenes above, you likely would not have taken the photos, but that says more about your own lack of sensitivity to this wonder-filled world than anything else.
In the end, what are you really complaining about? That someone paid that much money for something that you think is worth pennies? But the value of an object, as Todd said, is whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Since you didn’t pay for the above photos, why not just sit back and look at the photos as something made. If, in the end, you see no beauty there, then say so (and I will argue the opposite). But to complain that someone places a monetary value on an object much higher than you do is to complain about very little.
November 10th, 2011 | 11:07 am
Todd Joe, I’m afraid your post fails to grasp basic economics. An item is worth precisely what a person is willing to pay for it. Not more. Not less. An incompetent budger who trashes his company will get eight or even nine figures.
From a bloodless economic view, this is technically true. But your statement assumes that price determination can (or should be) divorced from moral and other considerations. I don’t think you really believe it. In fact, I’m pretty sure you do not. Certainly no one who thinks that “income inequality” is a moral issue (as I assume you do) could agree to such a claim.
Benighted Savage Mr. Carter, are you suggesting that the Christies auction where the photo was sold was somehow “fixed”? If you believe that a conspiracy of “Cultural Elites” colluded to artificially drive up the price at auction, then perhaps you should contact Scotland Yard.
Oh vey. Can you really not see the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post? Really?
No, I don’t truly believe there is a conspiracy of who “Cultural Elites” colluded to artificially drive up the price. I believe there is a confederation of Cultural Idiots who have an excess of money and ego and drove up the price for a work of “art” that should be priced at $3.99.
Can you name five? Can you name three?
Damien Hirst, Charles Saatchi, Jerry Saltz
Lee S. The point is not that you could have taken those pictures; the point is that you didn’t.
No, actually, I don’t think that is the point at all. I have taken pictures before, many that are better than that one. So that can’t really be the point.
Art works in similar fashion, and “technical virtuosity” has very little to do with anything.
Nonsense. That is the sort of claim that talentless art school grads like to believe. But throughout art history the claim that “technical virtuosity has very little to do with anything” would be viewed as absurd and philistine.
If you had seen the same scenes above, you likely would not have taken the photos, but that says more about your own lack of sensitivity to this wonder-filled world than anything else.
No, what is shows is my artistic judgment is better than Gursky’s. I can tell when a picture is boring.
But to complain that someone places a monetary value on an object much higher than you do is to complain about very little.
I disagree, I think it is to complain about a lot. There are thousands of great artists in America who can’t make a living because art patrons are paying for junk rather than putting their money behind works of beauty and transcendence.
November 10th, 2011 | 11:11 am
I don’t think that Joe is suggesting that the auction is rigged, nor is the post somehow a violation of free market economics. The price is the price and the payer freely agreed to it. One can question luxury purchases of all kinds. A Rolex is perhaps better than most cheap digitals, but is it so much better to command a price multiple of 200x? There’s a component of quality, plus a snob premium. It’s arguable whether the Rolex is worth it. This photo is an extreme case where it’s all snob premium, full stop. The culture that leads to such bidding is sick and immature, taking delight in shock value like a toddler pushing the limits to see when his parents get ticked.
November 10th, 2011 | 11:30 am
Depressing. “The Painted Word” and “From Bauhaus to Our House” ought to be required reading for all college freshmen (high school?)
November 10th, 2011 | 1:58 pm
Actually, I don’t think most of us CAN see the tongue-in-cheek nature of this post. I know I didn’t.
November 10th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
J.W. Cox Actually, I don’t think most of us CAN see the tongue-in-cheek nature of this post. I know I didn’t.
I suppose I do take for granted that people realize that I don’t believe in Grand Conspiracy Theories. I don’t think there is an Art World that is conspiring to shock the public. As I’ve said before, we don’t need to advance a conspiracy theory when it can be explained by confederacy theory:
The reason this photo sold for $4.3 million is because there are a lot of dumb rich people willing to make talentless people rich. But I thought it’d be more interesting to propose a rational reason for their actions rather than just pointing out that it’s an example of dumb people doing dumb things.
November 10th, 2011 | 2:34 pm
I am shocked by the price and can make no sense of it (other than what others have said—that it’s worth what someone is willing to pay). Congratulations to the photographer, though. I am glad whenever an artist sells his or her work.
I’d also like to say that I think it is a beautiful photograph. Clear colors, great composition, soothing to look at. It would make a great subject for a painting, especially an abstract landscape.
November 10th, 2011 | 3:03 pm
The real artistry in most modern art is the art of salesmanship.
The National Art Gallery paid an exhorbitant amount for a painting by Barnett Newman called ‘Voice of Fire’ because it had been exhibited at Expo ’67 and Newman is considered an important artist.
Most taxpayers think we got hosed. The art community is still defending the purchase.
November 10th, 2011 | 7:29 pm
Joe Carter writes:
Oh vey. Can you really not see the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post?
*************
I can see the derisive nature of your post: Pretentious Art Connoisseurs/Cultural Elites/Clever Souls of the Art World, who are out to shock us rubes, are worthy of your ridicule and our contempt. The tongue-in-cheek elements in your post were secondary.
Joe Carter further writes:
I don’t think there is an Art World that is conspiring to shock the public. As I’ve said before, we don’t need to advance a conspiracy theory when it can be explained by confederacy theory…
*************
Your “confederacy theory” is indistinguishable from a conspiracy theory.
In any case, your newly-articulated “confederation of Cultural Idiots” (dupes) is not the same as the “Cultural Elites” (tricksters such as Damien Hirst, Charles Saatchi, and Jerry Saltz) who were the focus of your derision earlier. Perhaps it would be better if you were to just stop personifying cultural and institutional processes.
I’d agree that there are, obviously, individual artists who, for several reasons, try their best to shock. One might even speak of a “culture of transgressiveness.” However, your implausable claim that those clever chaps in the Art World are now using — i.e., “employing for or applying to a given purpose” — art auctions to get their bourgeois-baiting jollies goes well beyond either of these formulations.
November 10th, 2011 | 11:28 pm
In addition to the 2 Tom Wolfe books, I would also add Orson Welles’ masterpiece “F For Fake,” which explores, among other things, the emergence of the “art market” and the idea of “expertise.”
It also has a brief but beautiful scene on Chartres Cathedral, which you can see here:
November 11th, 2011 | 4:21 am
DP
Your mention of Chartes recalls an occasion when I took a friend of mine, who was visiting Paris, into the Sainte Chapelle. It was about 8.15 on a beautiful, bright September morning and the stained glass windows could not have appeared to better advantage, throwing a mosaic of pale colour onto the floor of the empty building.
He glanced round, then turned to me and exclaimed, “Gosh, it’s chilly in here!”
De gustibus and all that
November 11th, 2011 | 11:13 am
[...] Farce and art. [...]
November 11th, 2011 | 11:14 am
[...] Farce and art. [...]
November 11th, 2011 | 7:35 pm
Well I thought it was funny! The post AND the whole art collector world that decides that this photo is worth $4 million and the gorgeous stock landscape photos you can buy on the internet are worth $35.
November 13th, 2011 | 12:41 am
I find the automatic response of some commenters interesting: the claim that things are worth simply what people are willing to pay for them has the direct implication that nothing can be overpriced or underpriced; that there are no bargains and no bad deals; that, in fact, it is impossible to price anything unjustly as long as someone will pay it. Nobody actually believes such nonsense; everyone attributes value and disvalue to things by comparisons that have nothing to do with the actual price paid, and we all can make perfect sense of saying that somebody paid too much for something, or that a price is too high even if someone will pay it. The conditions under which price paid can reasonably be said to track the worth of the thing in question are not universal; in part because other things beside the thing bought can be factored into deliberation about price. Status signaling, for instance, which can at times have virtually nothing to do with the thing bought. Nor is it plausible to identify actual worth with attributed worth in the absence of any consideration of practical or moral rationality. But it is interesting how easily people will swallow such an incoherent principle, merely because they have the notion that it’s ‘economics’.
November 13th, 2011 | 8:01 pm
“the greater talent”
I love your turn of phrase David. I’ll remember that the next time someone asks my opinion on celebrities I’ve never heard of.
I always assumed the price of the artwork was tied more directly to the price of the wall it was going to hang on than any intrinsic qualities.
November 14th, 2011 | 2:24 am
Looks rather beautiful to me. The high price of art does, perhaps, call into question how do we price the sublime. But a fine piece like this is certainly worthy of laurels.
November 15th, 2011 | 3:23 pm
[...] Joe Carter Over the past couple of years I’ve been quick to denounce modern art that is overpriced, ready-made, non-visible, or simply by Thomas Kinkade. What I haven’t done (at all, now that [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact