World's Priciest Picture Is As Bland As It Is Expensive

Andreas Gursky is well-known for his stunning full-colour landscapes, though this one seems to only include green and grey. And yet it just became the world's most expensive photograph, fetching a whopping $4.3 million.

This is Andreas Gursky's Rhein II, an 81-inch x 140-inch print of the famous German river. It went on sale at Christie's on Tuesday, smashing the previous record of $US3.9 million for Cindy Sherman's Untitled #96 sold in May. Funny enough, Untitled #96 had itself displaced Gursky's earlier work, 99 Cent II Diptychon which sold for $US3.35 million in 2006. Good to see that at least the high-end photography art market is weathering these economically turbulent times. [BuzzFeed]


Comments

    People with wayyyyyyyyy too much money out there...

    Why would anyone pay $100 for this photo when you could very easily take it yourself, let alone $4.3 million....

      You're a bigot and a fool.

    WOW, I take loads of photos of this type of scene. :S

    When I take a photo like this I generally delete it and move on.

    Maybe I'm doing it all wrong.

    So does the winner get the original RAW file or just a JPG?

    I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

    You payed how much? $4.3 million,... Phhhahaha you're a fucking moron...

    Is this for real??! I honestly think i could take a photo just as good as this. Not dissin' the guys work but the guy that paid that much is a complete twat. Spend $1000 on a camera, $1000 on a trip to Germany and take the photo yourself and give the remaining 4.3 million to charity if you really have that much money to blow..

      You almost certainly could *not* take the equivalent photo, I think it’s qualities are lost on you, for you to make such a comment.

    I just found a great way to become a millionaire.

      You almost certainly could *not* take the equivalent photo, I think it's qualities are lost on you, for you to make such a comment.

    be as sorry as you like. The technical aspects of the photo are amazing, because lenses make such a photo very hard to get, I am guessing a fair bit of darkroom time was required and probably lots of exposures originally. Also this is a BIG ASS print, also techically demanding, not some happy snap on a consumer cam, the equivalent of giga pixels of data. And I think it is intersting to look at too !

    This has to be a joke.

    the expression 'emperor's new clothes' come to mind

    It's a great photo... but it ain't worth 4.3 mill to me...

    Could all the philistines step outside and stay out there please?

    While $4.3m might be a serious stretch as to the worth of this photo... it is still a great photo.

    To those of you saying "Go take it yourself"... I'd like to see you try. I'd like to see you achieve even similar dynamic range out of a single photo, not to mention that the lines in this photo, which I'll assume are relatively unedited... are pretty flawless. It takes some pretty f***ing expensive glass to take an image that balanced (in terms of distortion) to the sensor.

    I'm not saying it's worth $4.3m, I'm just saying that those saying they could do it themselves with a $1000 camera+lens kit are f***ing idiots.

      Your hysterical defense of this IKEA photo makes me smile.

        This is an incredibly stupid and boring photo. So what? As a professional photog all I can say is buy yourself a 4 x 5 view camera and a quality prime lens, go out and shoot an unbelievably pedestrian scene in lousy light, then blow it up to 81 x 104 because you're a pretentious egomaniac. Then only make three prints...because it sucks.

        And if you can stand to work enough wine & cheese gallery openings, poof!
        You're an artiste.

        Rich people, and especially 'art patrons' (i.e. rich, bored billionaire trophy wives) can be really stupid.

          the above comment, +∞

          Best you stick to wedding photography then...

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now