How do you sell a photo for over a million dollars?
>>4476693The right connections. Real talent has nothing to do with it at that price point.
>>4476693for starters dishonest photographyrhein ii is heavily shopped
>>4476693You need to be good at editing
>>4476693>>4476703if either of these photos were above 30 pixels wide we could compare them but alas
>>4476694>The right connectionsThis. It's not what or how you do, it's who you know.Especially photography. Since it can be done well by anybody really.
Boys, do not look up the list of most expensive photographs on Wikipedia. You will get angry.
>>4476720>that'll be 12 million dollars please.
It's art world connections but also theoretical depth. Gursky is working constantly yet only puts out 3 or 4 photos a year. He thinks extremely deeply about what he's doing and the result is that he captures the ennui of late capitalism better than anyone. His photos have to be defensible within the entire canon of western thought so that the old money dilettantes who sip wine and read critical theory all day will shuck out for it.
>>4476722That one at least makes some sense for the historical aspect: an early conceptual art photo. The Cindy Sherman slop is what got me.
>>4476699OBSESSED.
>>4476722Ah the fine artistry of GIMP’s text tool
Get a photo of a celebrity doing something wild.Sell it to the biggest agency.In fine art photography, it would be a case of becoming a renown photographer. Being widely published. Receiving critical accreditation for years. Then acquiring a gallerist who would be willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in promoting you and helping you to produce work by paying for it to be printed and distributed. Then you might produce a work which a company, syndicate, or wealthy individual might pick up at auction for over a mil. But its rare. You are about 100 times more likely to make a million by literally dumping photography right now and starting painting.
>>4476728Burtynski absolutely mogs Gursky.
>>4476917Burtynsky*
>>4476699That's the point. The artistic intention is how unnatural the rhine valley is.
>>4476917>>4476946Oh not at all. Burtynsky's grift is making technically competent photos in privileged places that people like us don't have access to. That's it. Any decent artist of the now century-old modernist tradition would make photos like his in those situations. Sure they are beautiful. But the obvious criticism (which was fatal to the new topographics movement 50 years ago) is why are you aestheticizing something you claim to hate? It's a derangement made even more painful by directly spelling out the environmentalist intent like he does. A clownworld Ansel Adams. Gursky is also guilty of exploiting access for shock value, but seems to understand he's made a deal with the devil given the conceptual depth of his images. Not being so concerned with seeming formally clever allows him confront deeper cultural aspects of the spectacle. Essentially Gursky depicts the disease, not merely the symptoms.
