First Response to Pages 19-37

First question: What is your opinion of the art of Andreas Gursky? Why?

At first I wasn't too keen on it, but on further exploration I have decided I like it. It seems to have a visual pull towards it.

Take this picture for an example. It actually feels like the left and right sides are pulling you into the picture. The bright colours are also captivating, but the use of repetition is almost calming, numbs the mind, makes my eyes relax and want to continue staring at this piece.

I know not all of his works look quite like this one, yet all of them in their own way have this trance-like effect, the one below keeps my attention because it almost looks like an optical illusion.

Although as fond as I am of all the works I've seen of his so far, I don't' really know if I'd ever want to purchase a piece and hang it up in my house; I go for things that are less abstract and more aesthetically pleasing, but I certainly would like to go see an exhibition of his work.

Second question: What do YOU think the value of art should be based on? Do you agree or disagree with Graw’s viewpoint?

I honestly think that the value of art should be based on dedication, and how much of yourself you put into the work. Consideration, time, effort, and emotional value;  I’m not going to pay a lot of money for a single brush stroke on a canvas that has “so much meaning” and I’m not going to sell a piece of artwork I spent weeks on, for less than I think it’s worth.

As for Graw's viewpoint, it seems quite vague to me. She mentions a lot of things that do contribute to the value of artwork, or things to be considered; such as market value, material value, symbolic value, whether it's one-of-a-kind of not, but I feel as though she's always beating around the bush of a straight answer - so I can't really agree or disagree with her viewpoint. I mean there's certain things she says that I do agree about but as a whole I find it a tad confusing.