Strip of grass or work of art?

Rhine II by Andreas Gursky

One of my tutors was telling me about a discussion he had had with photography students about the most expensive photograph in the world - Andreas Gursky's Rhine II, which sold two years ago for 4.3 million US dollars.

The question he was asked was: "How can something that boring be worth that kind of money? It's just a photo of a strip of grass."

A sub-heading to a Guardian story reporting the sale seemed to suggest the same view: "Sum paid for sludgy image of desolate, featureless landscape sets new world record for a photograph".

But Telegraph journalist Florence Waters saw it differently. In an article on the sale, she wrote: "For all its apparent simplicity, the photograph is a statement of dedication to its craft".


And I have read elsewhere that Gursky's photo settles "once and for all" the argument over whether photography is art.

So what is it? A crazily overpriced 'snap' or a work of art worthy of the price tag?

First of all, the suggestion that Gursky takes nothing more than 'snaps' has no basis in fact. He can take months to plan his images and he carries out a great deal of post-production work. A dog, cyclists, walkers and a factory building were all removed from Rhine II.

Gursky is famous for his highly detailed architectural and landscape photographs. Critic Calvin Tomkins, writing in the New Yorker, said the huge, panoramic prints "had the presence, the formal power, and in several cases the majestic aura of nineteenth-century landscape paintings, without losing any of their meticulously detailed immediacy as photographs".

Gursky himself says Rhine II is his favourite photo. "It says a lot using the most minimal means," he said. "For me it is an allegorical picture about the meaning of life and how things are."

The auction print is three metres wide and, in my opinion, possesses a beauty that goes beyond the "strip of grass" observation. I like the colours and the composition - an arrangement of horizontal bands - and I have a strong affinity for minimalist images like this one.

Vir Heroicus Sublimis by Barnett Newman

It is interesting to compare Rhine II with minimalist paintings. How does it differ from the work of Barnett Newman, for example, who painted works of extreme simplicity? Can you call Newman's work art, but not Gursky's?

For me, the comments of a Guardian reader to one of the quoted articles summed it up well. She wrote: "Photography is just another medium for an artist to work in - one with it's own limitations and strengths".

You may like Gursky, you may not. But in terms of the application of creative skill and imagination, I believe his work is a form of art. And, as is the case with a painted work of art, there are people prepared to pay large sums.

To refer back to the student's original question, a photograph is worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it. But, whether the student likes it or not, Gursky's work is surely more than "just a strip of grass".

* I'd be interested to hear what other people think of this 'photography as art' debate. Just post your comments below.