The most expensive photograph in the world

At some point in time, there are some artists who become, first the darling of the critics and then they become "bankable". Good investment opportunities and little more. This is when the rot sets in.

I am convinced that when this happens it is no longer about their art and creativity. It becomes a financial matter pure and simple. This almost inevitably affects their work which often becomes about churning out more work in the same style (hey - when you are on a good thing, stick to it) to keep the galleries and investors happy. I look at the work of so many of the lauded artists who have reached this stage and there is a certain sameness about everything they do. In short they become a pastiche of themselves.

Later in life my dad had a jewelery store and supported himself comfortably for many years. His attitude was always the same though. Very realistic and unvarnished..... "These things" he used to say "are more or less worthless. They do not really do anything." - pointing to a stack of opals and rubies and diamonds. He understood that the only reason they were valuable was because people were willing to pay big bucks for them. Nothing else. (This is why the de Beers cartel for many years has controlled the release of diamonds. Diamonds are actually much more common than we think (although not the very best ones.) By making them more rare than they really are de Beers can prop up prices.) So its all about supply and demand. Same with art.
 
Last edited:
peterm1 said:
At some point in time, there are some artists who become, first the darling of the critics and then they become "bankable". Good investment opportunities and little more. This is when the rot sets in.

I am convinced that when this happens it is no longer about their art and creativity. It becomes a financial matter pure and simple. This almost inevitably affects their work which often becomes about churning out more work in the same style (hey - when you are on a good thing, stick to it) to keep the galleries and investors happy. I look at the work of so many of the lauded artists who have reached this stage and there is a certain sameness about everything they do. In short they become a pastiche of themselves.
clip
t.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. A close friend is a painter. He had galleries on both coasts handling his work. At one opening years ago, he sold enough stuff, to be able to write a check for the balance of his new homes mortgage. A year or so later, he went off on a new thing.. from figurative to landscapes. One of the gallery owners dropped him, and the other retired a few years later. He had some lean years, but his work is back in demand with new reps. It was something he needed to do to keep his interest up. I was in total support. Many would have kept cranking out the same stuff until it just got to be tired old art.

There have been books written on the effect that art critics and gallery owners have had on artists. Look at Jeff Koons.
 
PKR said:
I agree with you. A close friend is a painter. He had galleries on both coasts handling his work. At one opening years ago, he sold enough stuff, to be able to write a check for the balance of his new homes mortgage. A year or so later, he went off on a new thing.. from figurative to landscapes. One of the gallery owners dropped him, and the other retired a few years later. He had some lean years, but his work is back in demand with new reps. It was something he needed to do to keep his interest up. I was in total support. Many would have kept cranking out the same stuff until it just got to be tired old art.

There have been books written on the effect that art critics and gallery owners have had on artists. Look at Jeff Koons.
Click to expand...

Thanks and I agree with you. I was going to use Jeff Koons as an example myself but chickened out.

But now that you have raised it.... so much of his stuff seems to me to be just campy overblown, repetitive and boring. Oh and over-commercialised. But then there was Chicholina.......................................................
 
Pickett's funny link leads to commentary on this very photo.

The guy that bought it is an art dealer. This has nothing to do with Sherman's work (art) or the sanity of the price. It's business. You can build a reputation as a dealer or you can buy one. Segalot is Barnum.
 
gdmcclintock said:
In any case, Sherman is now a parody of herself: see the cover of Aperture where she appears as a working class girl in a cowboy hat, complete with grotesque makeup, like a sarcastic remark thrown by rich girl into the faces of those less fortunate than her.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you would jump to this conclusion ...
 
the ironic thing is it's getting much harder to make a living shooting, even as prices for famous shots go up and down.

I do like the shot though. :)

1981 female america...distilled.
 
It says 1981. That would make her around 27 at the time. Doesn't look that. Looks like teenage girls clothes so that would make it before she got into photography seriously. That poses a lot of questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom