sper
Well-known
'A world of funny money'.
Anybody feel like making me laugh? I'll donate my account number
Nice shot though, shows vision for an 18 year old. Beautiful soft tones. Blushing young lady. Interesting pose & composition.
Would look real good over a designer sofa, too
You're looking at a self portrait by one of the most important feminist artists ever.
Now as for the photo, bad investment. It will not appreciate in value, and her work is not worth the million+ premium.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I think we're getting slightly derailed here: Salvador Dali painted a lot of things. A lot. I mean, some far-out things. If someone paid, say, $2 million for trimmings of his mustache that he himself trimmed and glued onto chewing gum wrap, that's that chap's right to part with his money that way.
Yet because somebody assigns a different monetary value to one part of his work in no way necessarily means he/she is diminishing or dismissing all of his (Dali's) work.
I say that, effort-wise, competence-wise, and skill-wise, his "Relojes Blandos" deserve far more value than, say, his mustache trimmings, I don't think it'd be fair to say "you ignoramus, all of his work has equal value, and is worth far more than your daughter's doodles".
A commentary on an auction is a commentary on an auction, not on its object's composition, historical worth or meaning.
maclaine
Well-known
The most expensive photograph in the world
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not overly fond of Cindy Sherman's work, but I do like some of it. I think what bothers me most is the blatant narcissism, and how lazy it seems when there's a very interesting world out there that I'd rather see photographs of, but maybe that's the point. Anyway, she now holds the honor of having the most expensive photograph yet purchased be one of hers.
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/0...lls-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp
Let me preface this by saying that I'm not overly fond of Cindy Sherman's work, but I do like some of it. I think what bothers me most is the blatant narcissism, and how lazy it seems when there's a very interesting world out there that I'd rather see photographs of, but maybe that's the point. Anyway, she now holds the honor of having the most expensive photograph yet purchased be one of hers.
http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/0...lls-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp
Regardless of your opinion of the work, I cannot see how it can be called lazy. It takes alot of work setting these photographs up (costume changes, location choices, props, etc). Doesn't seem lazy to me. My type of photography...walking the streets and making photos of whatever happens to be interesting that day ... seems lazy in comparison.
maclaine
Well-known
Maybe I should say a lazy concept executed with a great deal of effort. In other words: "Of all the things in the world, what will I take a picture of? Me." That, to me, seems lazy, at least intellectually. However, it's just my opinion.
starless
Well-known
Whatever the price, it IS a boring photograph.
And as far as self-portraits go, any Francesca Woodman photograph is light years ahead of this.
And as far as self-portraits go, any Francesca Woodman photograph is light years ahead of this.
tlitody
Well-known
Now lets get this in perspective. In the same auction a teddy bear sold for $6.8 million
Last edited:
KenR
Well-known
Like many things in life, a photo concept that is fresh and daring at the onset can get stale with overuse. There are flashes of brilliance in some of the shots, but she beat it to death.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's unreasonable IMO to direct an accusation of narcissm at any artist ... it's their choice to use their medium as they see fit and if they succeed by going in this chosen direction then good luck to them. I don't see it as laziness or ignoring an interesting world that may or may not be out there for them.
It's a little like criticising Ansel Adams for his disinterest in self portraits because he spent too much time lounging about in national parks!
Last edited by a moderator:
huntjump
Well-known
I wont discredit this photographer or her work, but I can't see how this photograph fetched that much. I see paintings that are truly one of a kind pieces fetching millions...i dunno maybe im ignorant.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
If a person or a commercial entity dished out this amount... it would not be unreasonable to assume that it was not for love... he/she/they expect returns on the investment... What is value for money... there was a time when tulip bulbs were more precious than gold...
peterm1
Veteran
Hmmmm.......the artword is odd. But maybe thats what observers said about the Mona Lisa when it first came to light and was hailed a masterpiece. I guess in this case its only not odd if the gamble pays off and another buyer is found who will pay $4M in a few years.
This post brings to mind another recent thread in which I said that the photography that I really do not like at all, and find to be odd for something so expensive, is Gregory Crewdson's work. He can also attract 6 or 7 figure fees. I simply do not "get" his work and find it boring and somewhat pointless. I know he conducts his photography like a director making a movie but how can someone expend so much effort only to result in something so consistently banal. Its like making a two hour Hollywood blockbuster about someone getting up, making breakfast and going to work.
This post brings to mind another recent thread in which I said that the photography that I really do not like at all, and find to be odd for something so expensive, is Gregory Crewdson's work. He can also attract 6 or 7 figure fees. I simply do not "get" his work and find it boring and somewhat pointless. I know he conducts his photography like a director making a movie but how can someone expend so much effort only to result in something so consistently banal. Its like making a two hour Hollywood blockbuster about someone getting up, making breakfast and going to work.
bwcolor
Veteran
I don't get it and never will. I also don't feel that I'm missing something. No apologies.
charjohncarter
Veteran
At least it was film.
Last edited:
retnull
Well-known
Yep, you look at the photo, and you don't get it. But, some people do get it -- enough so that, at auction, the marketplace determined the photo was worth $4 million.
The photo sucks -- it's worth nothing. Then why did someone spend $4 million? They must be fools, right?
Either that, or there's something going on. Maybe. That thing is called "the art world". An international constellation of power, involving curators, collectors, gallerists, critics, academics, and artists, engaged in incredibly complex exchanges. Every year the art world generates ~$42 billion of economic activity.
But those people are clearly just a bunch of fools. Right?
The photo sucks -- it's worth nothing. Then why did someone spend $4 million? They must be fools, right?
Either that, or there's something going on. Maybe. That thing is called "the art world". An international constellation of power, involving curators, collectors, gallerists, critics, academics, and artists, engaged in incredibly complex exchanges. Every year the art world generates ~$42 billion of economic activity.
But those people are clearly just a bunch of fools. Right?
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Having not seen much of her work I did some googling. I tend to think that people who put so much work into self portraiture where they become photographer, model, make up artist, director etc, are probably control freaks where the process is entirely of their own volition and no one else can interfere with or influence the end result.
I can actually relate to that which worries me a little!
I can actually relate to that which worries me a little!
charjohncarter
Veteran
Just to indulge my interest does anyone Christie's number (1939):
apodeictic
Established
Colour coupler print simply refers to a chromogenic print (the kind made in the darkroom with a colour enlarger). This is different from an "archival pigment print" which is basically a fancy inkjet.
What truly blows my mind is that early chromogenic prints fade and shift in colour, quite dramatically, in a relatively short amount of time (i.e. 30-40 years in normal conditions). Advances in dye coupler technology made by fuji and kodak in the 90s furthered that life to 100 or so. In the art world that's nothing when you think of Vermeer or Rembrandt. Unless cold stored in sub zero conditions with low humidity (that will slow the chemical reactions which cause a c-print to fade and stain), that photo won't last very long until it's a yellowed faded mess. Doesn't seem all that worth it to me
maclaine
Well-known
This thread, although it deals with the same subject as the other thread, has a different tone to it. It's unreasonable IMO to direct an accusation of narcissm at any artist ... it's their choice to use their medium as they see fit and if they succeed by going in this chosen direction then good luck to them. I don't see it as laziness or ignoring an interesting world that may or may not be out there for them.
It's a little like criticising Ansel Adams for his disinterest in self portraits because he spent too much time lounging about in national parks!
I don't see it as an accusation, really. If narcissism is defined as on overt obsession with one's self, how can her work not be seen that way? If not in total, then in part. Perhaps she's saying other things in her photos that I'm not picking up or that just don't resonate as heavily with me, but it doesn't mean the work is immune to judgment from the people who view it. I may or may not be alone in feeling the way I feel about her work, but I stand by it.
GSNfan
Well-known
To me the genius of her is apparent in that she knew what she was doing and how people will be reacting to her and finally how much her prints would be sold. To me that genius in business is art of the highest order.
We can all get upset but she's laughing on her way to the bank... Larry Towell cannot raise a paltry sum of $9000 to do his 'art' while a single print by Cindy sells for millions... We live in a very interesting times, I just hope it all does not end in a French Revolution II sort of deal.
We can all get upset but she's laughing on her way to the bank... Larry Towell cannot raise a paltry sum of $9000 to do his 'art' while a single print by Cindy sells for millions... We live in a very interesting times, I just hope it all does not end in a French Revolution II sort of deal.