$4.3 millions for a photo – why not?

Christian Reister

There’s been a lot of talk about Andreas Gursky recently because of the price that one of his photographs achieved at some auction in (was it?) London. And of course there’s the usual „is this still photography!? and Is that photograph really worth 4 millions?“ debate going on… As far as I know, Gursky considers himself an artist, not a photographer, so much of the debate is obsolete anyway. I think it’s nice if someone spends 4 millions for a photograph. Why not? Just imagine what nonsense is usually bought with such an amout of money. Yachts, palaces, big cars, weapons… So I think it’s really nice to imagine that someone prefers a photo instead.

There’s a really nice and humorous feature about the Gursky World¬†from the early 2000s. At the end of it, Gursky explains the making of „Rhein II“, that is now the most expensive photograph in the word.

Leave a Reply