most expensive photo
Jan 1, 2020 09:16:36 #
Can anyone beat $6.5 million :-) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/10/antelope-canyon-photo-sells-for-record-65m/20230571/
Jan 1, 2020 09:20:11 #
Dave Sr wrote:
Can anyone beat $6.5 million :-) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/10/antelope-canyon-photo-sells-for-record-65m/20230571/
Considering he likely made it up, one need not bother
https://news.artnet.com/market/new-york-times-exposes-peter-lik-photography-scheme-264858
https://news.artnet.com/market/is-that-65-million-photo-sale-for-real-probably-not-196563
Jan 1, 2020 10:25:36 #
Thanks Darkroom317, I hadn't seen those. It's interesting how sneaky some folks can be. It is all interesting but not in my budget range :-)
Jan 1, 2020 10:42:43 #
jedcardio wrote:
can anyone tell me why a photo of the Rhine River is one of the most expensive photos ever sold. To me it is quite ordinary and uninteresting.
Some people just have too much money to burn IMO.
Jan 1, 2020 10:56:41 #
Think of the good that money would have done for St. Jude's Childrens Research Hospital, or other vetted charities. The photo is remarkable but.....
Jan 1, 2020 11:04:35 #
Les Brown wrote:
Think of the good that money would have done for St. Jude's Childrens Research Hospital, or other vetted charities. The photo is remarkable but.....
We have no way of knowing how much the person who bought the photograph already gives to charity.
Jan 1, 2020 11:23:31 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
We have no way of knowing how much the person who bought the photograph already gives to charity.
Why does that matter? the more given the better.
Jan 1, 2020 11:57:09 #
Les Brown wrote:
Think of the good that money would have done for St. Jude's Childrens Research Hospital, or other vetted charities. The photo is remarkable but.....
That's not a real answer.
We can always say the money could have been used for, fill in the blank..........with your choice of whatever.
And in reality many buyers of very high priced items including art, do also donate and support many charities. The Government allows tax deductions status for charities. Nice to be able to afford Rhine II.
Jan 1, 2020 13:07:07 #
Peterfiore wrote:
That's not a real answer.
We can always say the money could have been used for, fill in the blank..........with your choice of whatever.
And in reality many buyers of very high priced items including art, do also donate and support many charities. The Government allows tax deductions status for charities. Nice to be able to afford Rhine II.
We can always say the money could have been used for, fill in the blank..........with your choice of whatever.
And in reality many buyers of very high priced items including art, do also donate and support many charities. The Government allows tax deductions status for charities. Nice to be able to afford Rhine II.
IMHO the real answer is that it is a stultifyingly boring picture that looks as though it was taken by Eddie Jones, age 12, with his new Instamatic out a car window in the 1970’s.
Jan 1, 2020 13:17:02 #
Les Brown wrote:
Why does that matter? the more given the better.
So wealthy people who are already very generous with charitable giving should be subjected to that with every expensive purchase they make?
Jan 1, 2020 13:17:02 #
Well a Mondrian sold for $50.6 million and
the Gursky here sold for $4.3 million, so this
has to be worth $54.9 million.
However I'm having a sale;
"Rhine III" is yours for $54.90
the Gursky here sold for $4.3 million, so this
has to be worth $54.9 million.
However I'm having a sale;
"Rhine III" is yours for $54.90
Jan 1, 2020 13:33:31 #
sabfish wrote:
Some people have more money than sense.
Your "theory" flies out the window when they sell it for $6.8 million.
Jan 1, 2020 13:34:58 #
Abo wrote:
Your "theory" flies out the window when they sell it for $6.8 million.
Yeah. It's a great way to launder money.
Jan 1, 2020 13:36:50 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
Yeah. It's a great way to launder money.
How is selling a photo for a profit laundering money?
Jan 1, 2020 13:40:50 #
Abo wrote:
How is selling a photo for a profit laundering money?
Not a comment about one photo but rather an issue of the art market and why things somethings sell for the amount they do. It also explains why so many works go to anonymous buyers. It does look like institutions have caught on. It has to do with the source of the money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/arts/design/has-the-art-market-become-an-unwitting-partner-in-crime.html
https://amlrightsource.com/posts/money-laundering-artwork/
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.