The Most Expensive Photograph Ever Sold

[@SaboteurC64]

Now this tittle belongs to "Le Violon d’Ingres" by Man Ray sold for about $12 million USD

[@mhsvz6735]

4.3 million dollars… a classic case of money laundering.

[@nilsp9426]

Or hype-selling, like NFTs or Crypto coins.

[@alcom1313]

You're wrong it called tax evasion. 😉

[@stevecrain5833]

Actually, I wouldn't pay anything. If I wanted this photo - I would shoot it.

[@chumleyk]

It's not money laundering, it's shill bidding where the gallery selling the work buys it back with an anonymous bid thus having the price on record thus elevating all similar works in perceived value. THAT"S how the art world works

[@nouanni]

you forgot the most important part about his work: it's collaged together using dozens of pictures taken on different days. everyone in the comments saying how they could easily take a picture like this are severely underestimating his technical skill. thousands of pictures, handpicked to fit together perfectly, photoshopped and printed as big as 3,5 meters wide. seeing a print of his in real life is incomparable to viewing it on a tiny screen, the amount of detail is absolutely astonishing.

[@ImitativePhotography]

That's a good point.

[@hanshomesteading1276]

sorry, but lesson 1 in photography, only you know what effort it took to take a picture and nobody cares about the effort it took. at least that is for normal mortals the case.

[@Slave-Of-Christ]

I'd pay $14.00 . . . if it was in a nice frame. I could then throw the photograph away and have the frame.

[@fettbemmedesgrauens]

It is a great photo indeed. To me it is about the submission of nature by man, and it makes us think about it by using only 6 stripes. There is nothing more in the photo because it does not need anything more to tell this story. It is not beautiful because it does not intend to. Quite the contrary: As some famous painter used to say: if people get sick by looking at my pictures, I reached my goal. I think Gursky feels the same about this landscape. I also love how it provokes us by disregarding virtually all conventions of (landscape) photography - there is no depth, no distinguished subject, no complementary colors, the sky is bland, the proportion of sky and land is nowhere near any golden rule etc. But again, I feel that this is exactly the point. If you know these conventions, it provokes you to think about why Gursky did this, what he tries to say. For example, the near 50:50 partition between land and sky could mean that the photo is equally about the disenchantment of nature and god. The absence of a distinguished subject could mean that there is no specific place where humans have destroyed nature, while the rest of nature is still intact - instead, just as in the photo, nature is subdued everywhere, in the same devastating intensity, it does not matter where you look. I don't know if Gursky really had this in mind, but this photo evokes all these thoughts in me. This is what makes a great photo.

[@ImitativePhotography]

Interesting perspective, well said!

[@tradewisetv2801]

I think most photographers would find themselves both insulted and envious of Gursky's success. I view it as a case study, and appreciate the art surrounding the the success rather than the art at the center of it. To answer the question, as a viewer, I'd take in the scene and move to the next work. As a collector, I'd take in the scene and move onto the next work.

[@erikd1012]

This is a very intelligent comment. Greatly written.

[@dedskin1]

Its not about how much would we pay , they payed for it because they had money and wanted an investment , something that will not lose value , and that is why they purchased it , and that is why they purchased it for so much money , the more money it cost , the more money they have secured , out of the bank , easily transportable , easily hidden , its like a currency its like FIAT . That is what it is . That is what its use is .

[@mattzoozb1385]

I took a very similar photo of a sea landscape which is also in distinct horizontal layers: Grass, driftwood and flotsam, beach, mudflats, sea, horizon, a string of islands, sky, clouds. It looks objectively better than this one, but I doubt I'd get $4:95 for it. But I'm not famous tho.

[@Supermatsch]

That's the thing. When this photo was sold Gursky already hat a big name in the art scene. The 99 cent photo that was shown in the video too, was sold in 2006 for about 2 Mio. It's all about the fame and the name.

[@izonozi]

Hence why the say most artists make their money and get their fame after they die.

[@lindsaywebb1904]

I’d like to see this image

[@JCraftvfx]

4.3 million for a photoshoped image? Not even fully natural?

[@oneeyedphotographer]

It would be seen as artwork, not as documentary.

[@erikd1012]

Thanks for your videos! I already learned a lot about photography, even though I am not exactly new to the topic.

[@ImitativePhotography]

Glad to hear!

[@CoalRose0]

I would only pay a high price if the people I would show it to knew about its history. Anyone else would think me a lunatic.

[@nocommentnoname1111]

Idk, but awfully expensive for what it is.

[@CM-ry8xq]

Great 👍✌️🥂

[@izonozi]

All things are only worth what someone is willing to pay and photography is no different. I wouldn't say this photograph has any technical merit as such although as an abstract it has a somewhat aesthetic feel to it. The repeating blue & green horizontal layers no doubt add to its aesthetics as does the lack of depth and dimension. Given that Photoshop was used to remove some aspects of the image it would seem that the photographer did have a particular vision in mind when taking this photo which I think has to be commended. Is it worth what someone paid? For you and I maybe not, but for whoever bought it and for whatever reason it was. I don't know why, but when seeing this video it reminded me of the most viewed photo of all time: Bliss the world renown Windows XP desktop image. Obviously this has to put into proper context, considering the amount of people throughout the world running Windows on their computers this would hardly seem surprising, but it's not like it's the most viewed photograph ever by choice. Ironically, Microsoft paid that photographer over $100,000 (back in 2001) and although not up there with photos such as that featured in this video that's still not a bad payday in anyone's language. Then to add insult to injury at the other end of the scale, the photographer that took another Windows XP desktop background photo called 'Autumn' received a paltry $45 - no that is not a misprint. The world works in mysterious ways 😁

[@shaneethan523]

It is the most expensive photo because it is very hard to take a phot which is simple

[@tonyhayes9827]

Knowing the background and the `why' of any art work always add to it, I think. Then it just depends on whether that matters to you or not

[@IamUke]

An entirely unremarkable image, yet someone was compelled to buy it for an absurd sum. Good on the artist. Good for the buyer. Reminds me of Peter Lik's nice but fairly normal image that sold for 6 million. Striking gold with rich people saddled with limited imaginations.

[@PaulYeghouchian]

Banger Vid..not sure on the price tag tho. I wouldn't pay more than 2M🤔💯

[@oneeyedphotographer]

I'd make my own in my own way and offer it for a mere million.

[@haakon_b]

All the typical comments. "I can do that." Yeah, right, then why don't you do that? Show people Kandinsky, Pollock, Duchamps, they always say the same while they achieved nothing themselves.

[@noctilux7799]

Exactly.

[@neilb3299]

Proof that the art world should be treated as a joke.

[@PatrickSmith]

It’s all provenance and no substance. I like some of his pictures, but this one is devoid of nearly everything. And there are plenty of photos like it.

[@ImitativePhotography]

I like his pictures with people in them more because there's a sense of scale.

[@AlGreenLightThroughGlass]

Largely agree, but I don't hold it against the against the artist following a personal vision. Besides I quite like big empty landscapes devoid of content - but still he must have one hell of an agent acting on his behalf.

[@mauricerijnders3507]

10 €

[@bubbachua]

Crazy lol

[@paulsehstedt6275]

Big name doesn't mean outstanding work. I just took a view of his website and pics published there. Some excellent work, but also some amateur shots. He's far from being a storyteller. Rhine II would be in the 1,000 to €2,000 league when in 100x250 cm formate. But no offence: can he sell his works for millions, he's most welcome!

[@JunyuZhuTony]

5dollars

[@tdawg719]

It’s just money laundering. The photo sucks

[@keiga4370]

no

[@raybeaumont7670]

Price tag? How much for a piece of toilet paper? It's not even a truthful photograph - therefore only a manipulated image with no focal point or centre of interest. In short - crap!

[@walkingmanvideo9455]

what photos today are even truthful??????????

[@raybeaumont7670]

@@walkingmanvideo9455 They never have been.

[@raman5329]

Gursky never claimed to make documentary images. He manipulates his images to show what he felt, not what he saw. As any painter does. Just painters are not getting blamed for not picturing reality 1:1. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it crap.

[@sirbean5985]

Wait a minute 😂

[@lucaraimondo5967]

paying for it? .... if I had paid to get into an exhibition where that photo was displayed I would ask for my money back!