[/caption]Is Andreas Gursky's Rhein II photograph worth $4,338,500?
Personally I’ve seen lots of art that I think is not worth it’s weight in salt. However art is a subjective thing. Photographs – art for that matter are worth what the market will bear. Question is who can bear with 4+ million dollars in this economy? Obviously the very wealthy. Why would they pick this particular photograph? My theory is artists are treated like a commodity on the stock market and currently Gursky's work is a stock these investors see as lucrative buy. Next question is how long will the buyer hold on to this photograph before they sell it to turn a profit? Because 20 years from now I'd be shocked if this image is worth a 5 figure sum.
In my opinion Andreas Gursky’s photo Rhein II is not worthy of a postcard. If this image was to be submitted to a stock photography library it would be rejected.
The price tag on some art is determined not by it’s content but by the story around the art. All this talk is driving the price higher.
The Conscientious Extended makes some good points: "Why don’t we talk instead about what photographs tell us - regardless how much they’re worth? If Rhein II sells for so much money, why don’t we talk about the photograph? Let the millionaires and billionaires play their games at Sotheby’s, let them fight with oligarchs and sheikhs over their prints and paintings and sculptures and now photographs. None of that adds anything to photography - other than that little further corruption of the soul, when money is taken as the most important measure of a photograph’s value."
Read this article by Conscientious Extended for more information
Want to see the top 10 most expensive photographs listed by The Telegraph.
[/caption]
