From: Boris Liberman
On 5/20/2011 01:14, Bruce Walker wrote:
> The presentation's not good (it's a typical sensationalist site), but
> never mind that ...
>
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/the-15-most-expensive-pictures-ever-taken
>
> Clearly the name attached to the shot, not the content, is what sets the
> price.
>
> -bmw
Not intending to start a political discussion here. But have you noticed
that Dmitry Medvedev's photo is among these fifteen?
Boris
I did.
The fault I find with the list is it doesn't provide a context for *WHY*
the photos commanded the prices they did.
Did the photos command high prices because of the intrinsic value of the
images or because of the celebrity of the of the photographer? Or the
celebrity of the subject?
I just don't see how you can compare apples to apples from the list. I
don't even see how you can compare apples to oranges ...
For instance the Medvedev photo was a B&W print of the image sold at a
2010 St Petersburg charity auction. It's an annual event featuring "art"
created by politicians, athletes and other celebrity figures.
The same auction sold a painting by Vladimir Putin for $1.1 million in 2009.
Does that make Medvedev a better photographer than Putin is a painter?
If next year's high dollar piece sells for $2 million, will that make
the artist who creates it better in his field than Medvedev is as a
photographer?
If Medvedev wasn't President of Russia, his photo wouldn't have even
appeared in the auction.
The image I find most impressive on the list is Gustave Le Gray's "The
Great Wave, Sete".
Think about it. How did he manage to capture that wave frozen in time
given the state of photographic technology in 1857?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
