So why did we come to this point of blaming Gursky for all this? It seems like the article confuses two things, to sensational effect: the merit of the Gursky photograph as art, and its value as an economic object. The Wired piece ignored this first question, and the commenters jumped all over the work as an example of nonsensical contemporary art. Instead of railing against Gursky, though, it might be more productive to rail against the art world. After all, in the same Christie's auction, a Mark Rothko painting sold for $18 million, while a Cindy Sherman photograph sold for $300,000. The price for the Sherman is not even a tenth of what she sold for earlier this year, but it's still a sum of money that could get people riled up, especially given Sherman's technique as a photographer. Personally, I like Gursky's work, and "Rhein II" seems like a fine photograph, but I couldn't tell you why it deserves to be worth exactly $4.3 million! The excesses of the art world is a different question, and it's one which we should take seriously. Turning this piece of news into a witch-hunt against Gursky just, well, cheapens the discussion.