Guess how much this photo sold for

Spoiler:

Closest wins a large version of it to print.

EDIT: Competition closes at 17:00 on 11th November.

£300,000

£3.00

Are you able to move this Cane? Trash Talk used to be below the Boxing Vault.

I reckon around £2.7M

Hobo has always been my least favourite Admin.

Sorry!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/8883330/Photograph-by-Andreas-Gursky-breaks-auction-record.html

I am just obviously more cultured than the average admin.

I've just moved trash talk back beneath the boxing vault

Fists of Fury wrote:I've just moved trash talk back beneath the boxing vault

what a rip off

It’s photoshopped too. Not even a nice looking photo.

I'll PM your 'prize' Hobo. The white dog turd is about the most interesting aspect of the piece.

That's ridiculous.

You can't really criticise the "artist" or the photo, it's the idiot that paid that amount that deserves all the abuse.

i could think of a few more things i would rather spend that amount of money on

I have to say the photo got my attention. There is something about it.

I honestly thought this before I read the price tag.

Strongback wrote:I have to say the photo got my attention. There is something about it.

I honestly thought this before I read the price tag.

I can appreciate the symmetry, the minimilism, difference in surfaces etc, but at the end of the day it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.

its a joke...

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Sorry!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/8883330/Photograph-by-Andreas-Gursky-breaks-auction-record.html

I am just obviously more cultured than the average admin.

Not only cultured but a Tory as well.

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:I have to say the photo got my attention. There is something about it.

I honestly thought this before I read the price tag.

I can appreciate the symmetry, the minimilism, difference in surfaces etc, but at the end of the day it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.

Nobody told Andy Warhol that.

Strongback wrote:

Adam D (Hobo) wrote:Sorry!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-news/8883330/Photograph-by-Andreas-Gursky-breaks-auction-record.html

I am just obviously more cultured than the average admin.

Not only cultured but a Tory as well.

its pronounced pretentious strongy

Strongback wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:I have to say the photo got my attention. There is something about it.

I honestly thought this before I read the price tag.

I can appreciate the symmetry, the minimilism, difference in surfaces etc, but at the end of the day it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.

Nobody told Andy Warhol that.

Now HE was crap. He didn't digitally alter stuff though. I heard a rumour that when he died it was discovered that he'd been buying old masters and similar artwork. Turns out even he thought the old stuff was better.

Strongback wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:I have to say the photo got my attention. There is something about it.

I honestly thought this before I read the price tag.

I can appreciate the symmetry, the minimilism, difference in surfaces etc, but at the end of the day it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.

Nobody told Andy Warhol that.

Which of his are digitally corrected photographs?

Nobody said that Warhol did digitally alter photographs, Strongback merely pointed out that nobody had told him that "it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.", which it is fairly safe to assume that they didn't.

I really like it.

Union Cane wrote:Nobody said that Warhol did digitally alter photographs, Strongback merely pointed out that nobody had told him that "it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.", which it is fairly safe to assume that they didn't.

You're such a sarcastic git.

BALTIMORA wrote:. Turns out even he thought the old stuff was better.

And I get slated on here for arguing similar.

Reminds me of Selby where I grew up. The River Ouse bank in the foreground with the flood plain in the distance. Obviously missing the odd coal fired power station here and there.

Union Cane wrote:Nobody said that Warhol did digitally alter photographs, Strongback merely pointed out that nobody had told him that "it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.", which it is fairly safe to assume that they didn't.

So what was his point? Did I miss something? Have posts been deleted which would otherwise have clarified the situation?

rowley wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:. Turns out even he thought the old stuff was better.

And I get slated on here for arguing similar.

Yeah but the old stuff Warhol liked was in colour...

Michaels, Sean wrote:Reminds me of Selby where I grew up. The River Ouse bank in the foreground with the flood plain in the distance. Obviously missing the odd coal fired power station here and there.

I believe this may have originally had a power station in it.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Nobody said that Warhol did digitally alter photographs, Strongback merely pointed out that nobody had told him that "it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.", which it is fairly safe to assume that they didn't.

So what was his point? Did I miss something? Have posts been deleted which would otherwise have clarified the situation?

Not sure what his point was to be honest.

It's a bit like saying "Nobody told Winston Churchill that you get free Wi-Fi if you park outside any McDonalds restaurant."

Scottrf wrote:

Michaels, Sean wrote:Reminds me of Selby where I grew up. The River Ouse bank in the foreground with the flood plain in the distance. Obviously missing the odd coal fired power station here and there.

I believe this may have originally had a power station in it.

Really?

My old man used to be one of the street volunteers who'd do shifts standing on the bank over night ready to alert the neighbours if it was gonna break.

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:I have to say the photo got my attention. There is something about it.

I honestly thought this before I read the price tag.

I can appreciate the symmetry, the minimilism, difference in surfaces etc, but at the end of the day it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.

Nobody told Andy Warhol that.

Which of his are digitally corrected photographs?

Andy Warhol was a dab hand on the Amiga I'll have you know.

He also made a career out of altering photographs. Honing in the word digital is not only incorrect it is also pedantic.

Union Cane wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Nobody said that Warhol did digitally alter photographs, Strongback merely pointed out that nobody had told him that "it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.", which it is fairly safe to assume that they didn't.

So what was his point? Did I miss something? Have posts been deleted which would otherwise have clarified the situation?

Not sure what his point was to be honest.

It's a bit like saying "Nobody told Winston Churchill that you get free Wi-Fi if you park outside any McDonalds restaurant."

is this true?

That nobody told Winston Churchill? I should imagine so.

AlexHuckerby wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Nobody said that Warhol did digitally alter photographs, Strongback merely pointed out that nobody had told him that "it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.", which it is fairly safe to assume that they didn't.

So what was his point? Did I miss something? Have posts been deleted which would otherwise have clarified the situation?

Not sure what his point was to be honest.

It's a bit like saying "Nobody told Winston Churchill that you get free Wi-Fi if you park outside any McDonalds restaurant."

is this true?

Yeah, Wi-Fi didn't exist during Churchill's time.

Union Cane wrote:Nobody said that Warhol did digitally alter photographs, Strongback merely pointed out that nobody had told him that "it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.", which it is fairly safe to assume that they didn't.

Warhol was computer literate man and used computers in his work.

If you're are going to have a pop at least get your facts right.

By the way you've taken to brown nosing like a duck to water.

Strongback wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Strongback wrote:I have to say the photo got my attention. There is something about it.

I honestly thought this before I read the price tag.

I can appreciate the symmetry, the minimilism, difference in surfaces etc, but at the end of the day it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.

Nobody told Andy Warhol that.

Which of his are digitally corrected photographs?

Andy Warhol was a dab hand on the Amiga I'll have you know.

He also made a career out of altering photographs. Honing in the word digital is not only incorrect it is also pedantic.

It's not incorrect. Not really pedantic seeing as the initial point was mine and that was what I chose to specify. I believe the value should be in the original image otherwise it doesn't matter what you photograph.

There are millions of people who could create this, and it doesn't have any innovative or unique characteristics. The difference is they aren't seen as an artist so nobody sees what they create as art. Once you have that tag, whatever you create has value I guess.

Strongback wrote:

Union Cane wrote:Nobody said that Warhol did digitally alter photographs, Strongback merely pointed out that nobody had told him that "it's a digitally corrected photograph. It shouldn't carry a large price tag.", which it is fairly safe to assume that they didn't.

Warhol was computer literate man and used computers in his work.

If you're are going to have a pop at least get your facts right.

By the way you've taken to brown nosing like a duck to water.

Is that aimed at me? I was sticking up for you mate!

Scottrf wrote:There are millions of people who could create this, and it doesn't have any innovative or unique characteristics.

It's like that feller who did the "urinal" sculpture. Someone said to him "Anyone could have done that." to which he replied "Yes, but they didn't."

Union Cane wrote:

Scottrf wrote:There are millions of people who could create this, and it doesn't have any innovative or unique characteristics.

It's like that feller who did the "urinal" sculpture. Someone said to him "Anyone could have done that." to which he replied "Yes, but they didn't."

Or they might have done, but if they aren't already seen as an artist it would be ignored.

Indeed.

Union Cane wrote:
Is that aimed at me? I was sticking up for you mate!

Yeah but like me he can see past the shroud.....

Just to clear up a fact boys and girls.....

Andy Warhol took photographs and digitally manipulated them when making art.

I wouldn't want anyone reading the thread, the youngsters that log on etc, thinking that Andy Warhol didn't do digital photographic artwork.

It's important we are factual.


Union Cane will undoubtedly appreiate my sentiments.

Strongback wrote:Just to clear up a fact boys and girls.....

Andy Warhol took photographs and digitally manipulated them when making art.

I wouldn't want anyone reading the thread, the youngsters that log on etc, thinking that Andy Warhol didn't do digital photographic artwork.

I asked which.

Nevermind, found now. Hardly what he was known for and created his value from.

Did you see Union's digital mastery on the Boxing and the movies posters?

Warhol had nothing on him.

Michaels, Sean wrote:

Union Cane wrote:
Is that aimed at me? I was sticking up for you mate!

Yeah but like me he can see past the shroud.....

You thinking 9 pieces of silver as well.

Warhol had nothing on most people.

Strongback wrote:Union Cane will undoubtedly appreiate my sentiments.

I'm very appreiative indeed.

I should sell my masterpiece:

Spoiler: