$4.3M - I JUST DON'T GET IT

Seriously? $4.3 million? I just don't get it.

I'm playing art critic today. Now, I'll be the first to admit that art is way too subjective to be judged, but really, $4.3M for this?

This photo, taken in 1999 and titled Rhein II by Andreas Gursky, a famed German photographer, 81" x 140" and mounted on plexiglass sold at Christie's auction house for $4.3M. Christie's expected the photo to sell for $2.5-$3.5M.

Copyright 1999 Andreas Gusky

I'll just simply take you to the Wikipedia overview of Gursky and his work.

Personally, I can't say I'm impressed. I see the scope of this image, the simplicity, the color scheme. I even get the whole subject content. Not something I'd go for. It's just to.... I'm not even sure what. It's all a matter of style and it's just not my style. I love the green and silver mix of the grass and river, as well as the blue-gray of the sky. Okay, I like the colors. But I'm not at all impressed with the composition. Subject matter is kind of bland. I'm not even sure that the horizon is straight. I think it is, but I'm not sure (and maybe it's not supposed to be straight and maybe it's just the way my computer is angled - who knows).

But is this really worth $4.3M?

Am I jealous? Shoot yeah! What photographer wouldn't want her photo selling for $4.3M? Do I think it's worth it? No. Do I think the artist's name is worth it? Maybe (but then again, who knows).

$4.3M? I just don't get it.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.