New highest priced photograph
Dec 11, 2014 11:29:10 #
TheDman wrote:
Not at all. There are limitless photos in a park, ... (show quote)
Yes, it's been shot a million times but not with a phantom in it, just like your tree example.
Dec 11, 2014 11:30:03 #
dsmeltz wrote:
Sometimes art is showing the familiar in a new way.
I agree with you completely. :thumbup:
Dec 11, 2014 11:32:46 #
If any of us hoggers had shot that phantom photo instead of Lik I am pretty sure they would not get $6.5m for it. :lol:
Dec 11, 2014 11:35:34 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
IR Jim wrote:
Yes, it's been shot a million times but not with a phantom in it, just like your tree example.
It's a new twist on a very cliche location. The tree is a completely new location.
Dec 11, 2014 12:17:55 #
This discussion puts this matter in a useful context:
"This Peter Lik photograph reportedly just went for a world record $6.5 million"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/11/this-peter-lik-photograph-reportedly-just-went-for-a-world-record-6-5-million/
As an aside, I take objection to the slam against black-and-photography aired in this story.
"This Peter Lik photograph reportedly just went for a world record $6.5 million"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/11/this-peter-lik-photograph-reportedly-just-went-for-a-world-record-6-5-million/
As an aside, I take objection to the slam against black-and-photography aired in this story.
TheDman wrote:
Finally something beat Gursky's Rhein II. Peter Lik just sold a shot of Antelope canyon for $6.5 million. While certainly better than Gursky, I'm kind of surprised it was a shot from such a clichéd photo spot.
Dec 11, 2014 12:37:29 #
Dec 11, 2014 17:36:10 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
dsmeltz wrote:
Mr. Jones is clearly and idiot.
Clearly Mr. Jones is without any taste or appreciation for anything beyond his own articles.
Dec 12, 2014 00:48:05 #
Has anyone ever wondered how many ordinary people take great photographs and take them to a known photographer who, based mostly on reputation, sells the photograph for an exhorbitant price, giving the original photographer a small split in exchange for lifelong silence?
Dec 12, 2014 18:23:15 #
Clearly unethical if and when it does happen, for representing another's work as one's own. Seems akin to plagiarism.
Mogul wrote:
Has anyone ever wondered how many ordinary people take great photographs and take them to a known photographer who, based mostly on reputation, sells the photograph for an exhorbitant price, giving the original photographer a small split in exchange for lifelong silence?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.