Rare photo sets $2.9m sale record
Rare photo sets $2.9m sale record
Author
Discussion

FourWheelDrift

Original Poster:

92,337 posts

314 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/amer

Rare 1904 colour autochrome photograph by Edward Steichen

BBC said:

A rare print taken by US photography pioneer Edward Steichen has set a world record for the highest price paid for a photograph auction.

The Pond-Moonlight - taken in New York in 1904 - was sold for $2.9m (£1.6m), more than doubling the previous record.

The 41x48cm photo shows a pond in a wooded area with light coming through the trees and reflected in the water.

The only other two copies in existence are in museum collections. The buyer's identity has yet to be disclosed.

But no doubt he or she feels that owning a piece of photographic history is more than worth the record-breaking price-tag, the BBC's Elettra Neysmith says.

The photograph was put up for sale by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which has another copy in its collection.

Stephen Perloff, the editor of the Photograph Collector, a newsletter about the photography art market, said before the Steichen auction that it would be a "moment of history", the Associated Press news agency reports.

Steichen began experimenting with colour photography in 1904.

He was one of the first Americans to use the autochrome - a revolutionary method of producing colour photographs.

The previous record for highest price for a photograph at auction was set last November by Richard Prince's Untitled (Cowboy). It sold for $1,248,000 (£719,000).

The Pond-Moonlight was auctioned at Sotheby's in New York.

matt gravy

1,857 posts

278 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
thats a pretty crap photo for $2.9 mill.

FourWheelDrift

Original Poster:

92,337 posts

314 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
I think the point here is that it's a very early colour photo, taken by one of the pioneers of colour photography approximately 30 years before colour photography became in any way accessable to the masses.

Unless you were being sarcastic of course

bacchus180

779 posts

314 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
its a bit noisy ... must have used a nikon at 800iso

matt gravy

1,857 posts

278 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
I understand the point, but at the end of the day, photos are for looking at...

HankScorpio

715 posts

267 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
matt gravy said:
photos are for looking at...


Only part of it.
There's also the appreciation of the art and the skill of the photographer.

There are millions of people who would flick through a glossy car mag and say "Pictures of cars, very nice but so what...?" and you'll also get the portion of the population who admire not only the subject but also the way it's photographed and presented.

Whoever bought this obviously has an appreciation of the object beyond the aesthetics.

dcw@pr

3,516 posts

273 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
matt gravy said:
photos are for looking at...


couldn't agree more. let's all take a look at this one...



on a sensible note, it's a fun picture with obviosuly good heritage, but can't say i'd pay that much money for it (obviously). It looks a bit like a pinhole pic frm my set up...

matt gravy

1,857 posts

278 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
HankScorpio said:

"Pictures of cars, very nice but so what...?"


An early colour photo that happens to be very rare, but so what...?

dinkel

27,818 posts

288 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
Sad thing is . . . that pic will get stored in a safe.

matt gravy

1,857 posts

278 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
dinkel said:
Sad thing is . . . that pic will get stored in a safe.


best place for it. If someone posted that shot here and claimed that they had taken it they'd get shot down in flames or ignored.

ehasler

8,579 posts

313 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
I've seen worse here

It's the same thing as someone buying a classic car for millions - the car itself may not be as good/quick/well-built as a modern one, but that's not really the point...

matt gravy

1,857 posts

278 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
At least most classic cars are nice to look at and sound great. That shot has neither of those things in its favour.

HankScorpio

715 posts

267 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
matt gravy said:
HankScorpio said:

"Pictures of cars, very nice but so what...?"


An early colour photo that happens to be very rare, but so what...?


Exactly, thanks for proving the point.
You don't appreciate it but the buyer obviously does, good luck to them. Everyone like different things for different reasons.
(I'd also love to have that kind of money to buy artisitic things I appreciate.)

ehasler

8,579 posts

313 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
matt gravy said:
At least most classic cars are nice to look at and sound great. That shot has neither of those things in its favour.
I doubt it was purchased because it was nice to look at...

bacchus180

779 posts

314 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
its just a commodity... not art. bit like some of hirsts stuff.. expensive crap

FourWheelDrift

Original Poster:

92,337 posts

314 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
matt gravy said:
dinkel said:
Sad thing is . . . that pic will get stored in a safe.


best place for it. If someone posted that shot here and claimed that they had taken it they'd get shot down in flames or ignored.


It was taken in 1904 on primitive equipment and long exposure, not yesterday on a digital.

matt gravy

1,857 posts

278 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
it does bear a remarkable similarity to a shot i saw from a primitive camera phone though.

ehasler

8,579 posts

313 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
matt gravy said:
it does bear a remarkable similarity to a shot i saw from a primitive camera phone though.
That's 100 years of technological progress for you then!

_dobbo_

14,619 posts

278 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
So Matt doesn't like it I reckon.

Don't see the point myself either to be honest, but then if you gave me the mona lisa i'd say the elaborate gold fancy frame doesn't go with the rest of my furniture...

vipers

33,514 posts

258 months

Wednesday 15th February 2006
quotequote all
FourWheelDrift said:
I think the point here is that it's a very early colour photo, taken by one of the pioneers of colour photography approximately 30 years before colour photography became in any way accessable to the masses.

Unless you were being sarcastic of course


Sorry, still cant see why its worth 2.9 mill, just silly money if you ask me.