3 ms·

It’s the same reason there are $100 million paintings but not $100 million photographs. Painting is not copying. Painting is seeing and then making marks on th

It’s the same reason there are $100 million paintings but not $100 million photographs. Painting is not copying. Painting is seeing and then making marks on the page that will make others see. It is editorial in a way photography isn’t.

samatman 7y ago
I don't think that this is the reason. Photographs are inherently multiple; a single print might be all that exists, but the artist is at least able to make more. Comparing photographs and prints, Picasso's "La Femme Qui Pleure I" sold for $5.1M[0], while the most paid for a photograph appears to be $4.3M, for Rhein II by Andreas Gursky[1]. I conclude from this that it's the singularity of paintings, rather than their editorial and subjective quality, that is responsible for the difference in price. [0]: https://www.christies.com/features/saleroom-picasso-la-femme-qui-pleure-1870-3.aspx https://www.christies.com/features/saleroom-picasso-la-femme... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photogr...
- thanatropism 7y ago
  You speak-write with such certainty that I'm sure you have an argument in your mind, but it didn't come across. I feel like some sentences were erased from your comment.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Supply and Demand. A valuable photo has higher supply so each copy is worth less. A valuable concrete illustration has supply of 1, even if the artist has cranked out many similar works.
- Someone 7y ago
  Paintings can be reproduced, both manually and automatically. Prints used to be easy to spot because of color quality and because they were perfectly flat, but that has become a lot harder with the advent of 3D printers that can layer ink and even craquelure (visually). See for example https://shop.ariustechnology.com/collections/all-products https://shop.ariustechnology.com/collections/all-products. I think it’s more a matter of ‘snobbiness’ that determines prices that get paid.
irjustin 7y ago
I agree with the 'editorial' aspect of this comment. The illustrator is able to draw the defining characteristics of the plant/subject and leave out what is not important. Things like veins or leaf structure to define the genus are incredibly important. The editorial nature can bring that forward. With a picture, it is hard for a lay person to tell what details are classifying/important.

samatman 7y ago

I don't think that this is the reason. Photographs are inherently multiple; a single print might be all that exists, but the artist is at least able to make more. Comparing photographs and prints, Picasso's "La Femme Qui Pleure I" sold for $5.1M[0], while the most paid for a photograph appears to be $4.3M, for Rhein II by Andreas Gursky[1]. I conclude from this that it's the singularity of paintings, rather than their editorial and subjective quality, that is responsible for the difference in price. [0]: https://www.christies.com/features/saleroom-picasso-la-femme-qui-pleure-1870-3.aspx https://www.christies.com/features/saleroom-picasso-la-femme... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photographs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_photogr...

thanatropism 7y ago
You speak-write with such certainty that I'm sure you have an argument in your mind, but it didn't come across. I feel like some sentences were erased from your comment.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Supply and Demand. A valuable photo has higher supply so each copy is worth less. A valuable concrete illustration has supply of 1, even if the artist has cranked out many similar works.
Someone 7y ago
Paintings can be reproduced, both manually and automatically. Prints used to be easy to spot because of color quality and because they were perfectly flat, but that has become a lot harder with the advent of 3D printers that can layer ink and even craquelure (visually). See for example https://shop.ariustechnology.com/collections/all-products https://shop.ariustechnology.com/collections/all-products. I think it’s more a matter of ‘snobbiness’ that determines prices that get paid.

irjustin 7y ago

I agree with the 'editorial' aspect of this comment. The illustrator is able to draw the defining characteristics of the plant/subject and leave out what is not important. Things like veins or leaf structure to define the genus are incredibly important. The editorial nature can bring that forward. With a picture, it is hard for a lay person to tell what details are classifying/important.