You won all of them, didn't you Jimmy?
Every photo in Mastro's auction was an absolute gem. And surprisingly, some of them went a lot cheaper than I thought they would. The shot of Gehrig's farewell, though almost going for 5K, I think was a
steal. It's just interesting to note how a striking Conlon portrait of Williams and those Thompson Ruth's can beat it out. And that's not to say that those other shots were slouches - obviously they were the complete opposite.
It makes me wonder, what is it about those single player shots that is so much more desirable than those with multiple figures? Does it have anything to do with their connection to cards? And I mean that not because of the frequency in which the cards are interpretations of those photographs, but because it might be easier to identify with a simple portrait of a player looking into a camera. Is it because they're just really simple? And I don't mean that in way that's condescending or anything. In those Thompsons of Ruth swinging, you have a beautiful vertical, full-body shot of the man, and everything else falls into the background so nicely. The clarity, contrast, condition, light and how they all relate to Ruth makes the photo almost completely out of this world from an aesthetic. In other words, there's not much other 'superfluous' information to make the image super busy.
Conversely, the Gehrig image is absolutely timeless and depicts one of the most famous moments in the history of the sport. Hell, that day transcends sport. In the image, my eyes go to Gehrig first, but then there's so much more - Sid Mercer, the Yankee players, The 7th regiment band, the Senators, the gifts, the stadium, etc. All of those things, though 'extras' in the image are by no means superfluous - they ALL add to the narrative of the story. Because of that, I almost feel like it should have gone for about 10k
more than it did.
I guess I also think of it from an artist's point of view, too. Back in school, whenever we were painting a single figure or a portrait, it always seemed to be treated as a study. It was our task to put said figures into a painting that told a story - which was to be treated as the final product.
Then again, the major of illustration is all about the narrative. Hell, it's even from the root of the word!
So, is it as simple as a couple of bidders got really passionate about those Williams and Thompson Ruths, and for whatever reason, not so much with the Gehrig? Or is there a reason I'm not quite getting?
I'm sorry for hijacking a thread, but I guess it really got me wondering: photo collectors, what do you focus on, and why?
My head hurts.
Graig