Besides scale it is important to note that this is an invented scene by Gursky. Nowhere along the Rhine looks like this. He took removed many buildings and other things in constructing this minimalist reality. The image reminds me of non-objective and color field paintings.

While I understand the concept and appreciate the image, I cannot defend the valuation. It is absurd but then as we know the art market is a truly absurd place.

It is up to artists to succumb to this insanity but to tear it down and build something new.

I wasn't suggesting that. This is not right place for that unless requested. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement as being general rather than about that specific image.

While there are many variables, the notion that one can't critique or criticise the content of a photograph is rubbish.

I would say that about 75-80 percent of the critical feedback I am used to is about content and concept. Yes, in visual art and visual communication concept and intent are important and are subject to scrutiny. Visual literacy is very important. Essentially the questions are...

What is the narrative or concept behind the image?
What does the image maker want to express?
Is it apparent enough to be readable?
Might it be misread partly or entirely?
Is is perhaps too obvious?
Are there conceptual layers that the viewer can engage with?
What is the aesthetic language of the image? Does it fit the concept?

These are few of the questions that are considered in the critiques that I am familiar with.

This all being said photography in particular is a vast medium with numerous uses. I am situated at this point the area of the "art world" or more specifically the "academic art world." Certainly not saying that is better than other areas but that is definitely a different world at times. In fact often many conceptual photographic works are technically crap by many peoples measure.

Nor am I saying that everyone or anyone needs to consider these things or critique this but rather pointing out that it is possible to critique an image beyond its technical and compositional aspects.

Sorry for the digression from the original topic. It was an aspect of the conversation that I find interesting.

One thing I have noticed on online forums and social media groups is a lack of critical feedback. A lot of the comments I see are "great image or I really like this." This is if people comment at all. Facebook and Instagram have made people obsess over likes and often this is all one receives. The amount you get is associated with how good the image is. I think this culture has contributed to the attitude the OP is referencing.

That all being said I have found providing truly critical feedback in online groups to be problematic. People in such groups usually aren't looking for it nor are they expecting it. Therefore, it is perceived as unwarranted and rude. This is unfortunate because only positive shallow feedback doesn't do much to help improve or clarify what they are trying to communicate in their work. It inflates egos and creates a lot of thin skin instead.

On Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood

Freestyle Photographic

As has been mentioned it has a nice ethereal feel. The blur and the soft, muted color palette are working very well in conveying this meditative feeling. However, because of the pixelation the image falls apart. This issue disrupts the feeling of the image.

It could be rather interesting in an alternative process like Gum Bichromate with a similar palette. It would push its ethereal nature even further.

It is a common practice in physical critiques with printed work to have either a peer (other student) or professor walk up to a print and use a sheet a paper to display a potential crop. When discussing composition we often point and and move our finger to visually discussion the exact lines, form and direction of an image.

Also, it is common for a professor or peer to either rotate a print to show a different potential view. Prints are often moved and resequenced too in the same manner, or even moved to be excluded to see if the series would be stronger or clearer without some of the images.

While, it is not common for someone else to draw lines on an image with pen or pencil, we often do this ourselves to check our compositions and highlight areas to be edited for improvement.

As this is an online forum we cannot have these intense critical discussions on here in the same manner because of the lack of physical communication, space and work. I don't think using lines on an image to visually articular compositional matter is unreasonable in a digital space such as this.

This really doesn't sound all that different than Marcel Duchamp's Fountain from 1917. I don't really have an issue with the work. However, what I do have issue with is the monetary valuation of it. The art market is an hilariously absurd place.


For more about Duchamp's fountain

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-duchamps-urinal-changed-art-forever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSKxJc_J0No

Here are a couple of links on appropriation art from the Museum of Modern Art and the Tate Museum.

https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/themes/pop-art/appropriation/

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/a/appropriation

Look up Sherrie Levine: After Walker Evans. Levine rephotographed a Walker Evans photograph reprinted it in the same manner and claimed it was hers. It was a conceptual piece meant to challenge the notions of ownership. Also, look up appropriation art.

Sure no problem. Not entirely sure what the work is about at the moment other than the human body and medical imaging. The images are of my body/ skin.

As far as the process, I use an altered version of the Lumen process using silver gelatin paper. I then scan the print which I treat as a negative for the final image. Finally, I manipulate the colors in photoshop and then make an inkjet print.

Thanks

Here is a photo of several of the pieces in this series

(Download)

Thanks