The most expensive photograph in the world

[ithrowbuckets]

jesus, i would not even give that picture a second look.

 

[Keith]

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.

I guess you're right in that narcissism in relation to her work is merely an observation on your part and not necessarily a criticism. Looking at her work I had never realised she was so fixated on self portraits but do you really think that obsessive self portraiture has to be associated with narcissism and not some other driving force?

 

[tlitody]

I guess you're right in that narcissism in relation to her work is merely an observation on your part and not necessarily a criticism. Looking at her work I had never realised she was so fixated on self portraits but do you really think that obsessive self portraiture has to be associated with narcissism and not some other driving force?

I think it's what you do as an adolescent. She just needs to grow up.

 

[retnull]

I think it's what you do as an adolescent. She just needs to grow up.

The POINT of Cindy Sherman's work is that the photos are NOT self-portraits. She is in the photo, but the image is of some pre-existing female image-type. She creates images of images and ideas that are circulating in our culture.

"I know a photograph is interesting when it doesn't look like me," she says. Looking across her output, it's difficult to believe we're seeing the same woman in every picture.

Her work has nothing to do with narcissism. In fact, it's more about the erasure of the self.

 

[jsrockit]

The POINT of Cindy Sherman's work is that the photos are NOT self-portraits. She is in the photo, but the image is of some pre-existing female image-type. She creates images of images and ideas that are circulating in our culture.

Ding ding ding... yep. As usual, people throw out the conceptual part of the work and concentrate on it as if it were a calendar photo.

 

[Pherdinand]

It's one single photo that was sold and that is subject of this (pretty vague) discussion.
Not a concept, not a body of work, not a philosophy, not a lifetime achievement of the artist. But One Single Photo.
So skip the in-depth discussion about what the POINT of CS's WORK is- or, actually, what SHE says the point should be.
If I look at THIS photo (and never met her in person nor do i have a very expensivenon-self-self-portraits of her), i say it's an okay photo of a young woman from the eighties without any philosophy behind it.
If you see more, then it' s because you are biased by the rest of her work that is consistent (best case) OR by what she explains it should be (not too good) OR by some critics' explanations (worst case) who has or does not have financial interest in that stratospherical selling price.

Is that one single photo worth that amount?

Well it obviously DOES, because somebody payed it.
Does it mean anything to me?
As a former member would have said it it means diddly squat to me- i have neither the $ nor the interest for a fading photo of the young miss Sherman.

Am i ignorant because of that? well maybe i am but since it's out in the public, even ignorant me can say what he thinks of it.

 

[Andy Kibber]

Criticizing a photograph because it's of one thing and not another always amuses me.

 

[Pherdinand]

Explaining why a photograph is great by a whole theory and philosophy in the head of the artist also amuses me. Always.

 

[GSNfan]

Thankfully the history and heritage of art is so rich and extensive that such little auctions have no bearing on what we still consider art.

 

[alistair.o]

Ding ding ding... yep. As usual, people on RFF throw out the conceptual part of the work and concentrate on it as if it were a calendar photo.

If it is art, then it would be figurative art, surely. Yes? No? as opposed to conceptual art? Not opposed as in "Stuckism rules!" but a totally different genre (darling - or should that be more like "Dwarling").

Al

 

[Andy Kibber]

Explaining why a photograph is great by a whole theory and philosophy in the head of the artist also amuses me. Always.

My comment wasn't a reply to your post (I think we were typing at the same time). I was speaking generally.

Anyway, in response to your post, if you want to look at a photograph in isolation without knowledge of who made it, why or what others have said about the work, that's your prerogative. Criticizing others for caring about stuff outside the photograph is just as silly as the opposite.

 

[Jack Conrad]

I like the photograph. Very iconic. In a way it reminds me of American Gothic, the painting by Grant, though of a different era.

And because I like it, its value has just jumped to $5.2 million.

 

[GSNfan]

I like the photograph. Very iconic. In a way it reminds me of American Gothic, the painting by Grant...

Actually, its a cheap imitation of Goya's Clothed Maja but I guess that is too 'old world' to be worth discussing in this brave new art world.

 

[GSNfan]

It's not Cindy Sherman who needs to "grow up" but, rather, a lot of the members commenting on her work that do.

Most certainly, and they should start by watching Cindy Sherman's masterpiece of a movie called The Office Killer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119819/

 

[jsrockit]

Most certainly, and they should start by watching Cindy Sherman's masterpiece of a movie called The Office Killer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119819/

Man, you can't fault her for trying something outside of her comfort zone...

 

[krötenblender]

Is it time to once again resurrect that classic parody of internet comments about iconic photographs?

Just read this Thread and this post. I did not know that link until know. Thanks for posting, I just can't stop giggling...

To the topic: I don't know about the real value of art, and often I don't recognize art as art, but some of the comments here about the value of art and the prices paid for it by collectors from people who would pay 6k $ for camera without autofocus (including me...) are really funny in that context.

In art and collectables it's NOT the economy, stupid. It's the heart and mind.

 

[Pherdinand]

In art and collectables it's NOT the economy, stupid. It's the heart and mind.

sadly, you could not be more wrong.
There's a LOT of economics in art, my friend. Way too much.

 

[tlitody]

Hi Fred;

Maybe you can help with this.. As I try to keep track of these things – and I know you’re up on this stuff:

A Type “C” Print is a Chromogenic print.. The “C” coming from either the word “Chromogenic” of from the Kodak Chemistry / Process and Paper = Ektaprint C. The Chromogenic print process uses Dye Couplers, that are also found in Ektachrome Films – where the Dye color is held in the Emulsion and released during processing. This differs from the Kodachrome and Dye Transfer processes, where the Dye is introduced at a later stage in processing. I remember reading (and this is certainly up for correction) that we - the USA (Kodak) “got” the Dye Coupler process during WWII when we took the process info from Agfa.

Another change in terms I’ve noticed is that “Digital Printing”, that was once Dye-Sub. (dye-sublimation) printing, became “Giclee Printing” when Ink Jet printers got popular.
Giclee Printing has now become “Pigment Printing” in the Gallery world. I don’t think there is any real difference form the common Ink Jet process, other than much better inks (Pigments) are being used and multiple Jets are now common in high-end printers.

The transition from real Photographic –Graphic Arts terms, to Gallery – Museum descriptives, is a gray area to me Technically. I can remember being corrected by a printer friend when describing a print as a Giclee and getting a stern correction – they are “Pigment Prints” .. I asked what the difference was and was told, the name has been changed.. No problem with the "art speak" as the current - correct terms are important to know, if you have an interest or do business in that world. Language is fluid - especially in the quickly changing digital photo world.

Fred, please correct my errors ..

pkr

The following was lifted from a site that no longer exists. It explains where the term Giclee comes from. And it is purely a marketing term. The Galleries having finally realised that they were making fools of themselves by using it, have begun to learn that giclee, Archival pigment and inkjet are all exactly the same thing. But they still won't call inkjets inkjets because that doesn't sound elitist enough. After all, everyone has an inkjet printer don't they. So what these prints get called by galleries is pure marketing hype.
And if anyone here can give a definitive meaning to the word "archival" then I would be impressed but I don't think I'm going to be. It doesn't actually mean anything except that a print has been processed to last as long the maker thinks it might using the process they use. It has NO definable time frame except some wooly projection life which are usually over optimistic so is meaningless.

What's In a Name: The Story of Giclée


One thing that became quickly apparent to the early digital pioneers was the lack of a proper name to describe the prints they were making. By the close of the 1980s, IRIS printers were installed all over the world and spinning off full-color proofs in commercial printing plants and pre-press shops. These prints were used to check color and get client approvals before starting the main print run. They definitely were not meant to last or to be displayed on anyone's walls. Most people called them "IRIS prints," or "IRIS proofs," or, more simply, "IRISes."

However, this wasn't good enough for the new digital printmakers like Maryann Doe of Harvest Productions and Jack Duganne, who was the first printmaker (after David Coons) at Nash Editions. They wanted to draw a distinction between the beautiful prints they were laboring over and the utilitarian proofs the commercial printers were cranking out. Just like artist Robert Rauschenberg did when he came up with the term "combines" for his new assemblage art, they needed a new label, or, in marketing terms, a "brand identity." The makers of digital art needed a word of their own.

And, in 1991, they got it. Duganne had to come up with a print-medium description for a mailer announcing California artist Diane Bartz' upcoming show. He wanted to stay away from words like "computer" or "digital" because of the negative connotations the art world attached to the new medium. Taking a cue from the French word for inkjet (jet d'encre), Duganne opened his pocket Larousse and searched for a word that was generic enough to cover most inkjet technologies at the time and hopefully into the future. He focused on the nozzle, which most printers used. In French, that was le gicleur. What inkjet nozzles do is spray ink, so looking up French verbs for "to spray," he found gicler, which literally means "to squirt, spurt, or spray." The feminine noun version of the verb is (la) giclée, (pronounced "zhee-clay") or "that which is sprayed or squirted." An industry moniker was born.

However, the controversy started immediately. Graham Nash and Mac Holbert had come up with "digigraph," which was close to "serigraph" and "photograph." The photographers liked that. But, the artists and printmakers doing reproductions had adopted "giclée," and the term soon became a synonym for "an art print made on an IRIS inkjet printer."

Today, "giclée" has become established with traditional media artists, and some photographers. But many photographers and other digital artists have not accepted it, using, instead, labels such as "original digital prints," "inkjet prints," "pigment prints," or "(substitute the name of your print process) prints."

For many artists, the debate over "giclée" continues. Some object to its suggestive, French slang meaning ("spurt"). Others believe it is still too closely linked to the IRIS printer or to the reproduction market. And some feel that it is just too pretentious. But, for many, the term "giclée" has become part of the printmaking landscape; a generic word, like Kleenex, that has evolved into a broader term that describes any high-quality, digitally produced, fine-art print.

One problem, of course, is that when a term becomes too broad, it loses its ability to describe a specific thing. At that point, it stops being a good marketing label and make no mistake about it, "giclée" is a marketing term. When everything is a giclée, the art world gets confused, and the process starts all over again with people coming up with new labels.

This is exactly what happened when a new group formed in 2001--the Giclée Printers Association (GPA)--and came up with its own standards and its own term: "Tru Giclée." The GPA is concerned with reproduction printing only, and its printmaker members must meet nine standards or principles in order for them (and their customers) to display the Tru Giclée logo.

In 2003, recognizing that only a small number of printmakers could meet the requirements of Tru Giclée, the GPA instituted a lower-threshold standard, "Tru Décor," which applies to the much larger decor-art market.

Others have also jumped on the giclée bandwagon with such variations as Platinum Giclée (Jonathan Penney's term for his black-and-white printmaking process), Canvas Photo Giclée (a California photo printmaking shop), and Heritage Giclée (Staples Fine Art's trademarked term for their brand of giclée printmaking).


giclée (zhee-clay) n. 1. a type of digital fine-art print. 2. Most often associated with reproductions; a giclée is a multiple print or exact copy of an original work of art that was created by conventional means (painting, drawing, etc.) and then reproduced digitally, typically via inkjet printing. First use in this context by Jack Duganne in 1991, Los Angeles, California.

 

[benlees]

If you substitute the word "camera" for the word "photo" and then substitute "Sherman" with "old German camera company", then you and I totally agree!

:angel:

It's one single photo that was sold and that is subject of this (pretty vague) discussion.
Not a concept, not a body of work, not a philosophy, not a lifetime achievement of the artist. But One Single Photo.
So skip the in-depth discussion about what the POINT of CS's WORK is- or, actually, what SHE says the point should be.
If I look at THIS photo (and never met her in person nor do i have a very expensivenon-self-self-portraits of her), i say it's an okay photo of a young woman from the eighties without any philosophy behind it.
If you see more, then it' s because you are biased by the rest of her work that is consistent (best case) OR by what she explains it should be (not too good) OR by some critics' explanations (worst case) who has or does not have financial interest in that stratospherical selling price.

Is that one single photo worth that amount?

Well it obviously DOES, because somebody payed it.
Does it mean anything to me?
As a former member would have said it it means diddly squat to me- i have neither the $ nor the interest for a fading photo of the young miss Sherman.

Am i ignorant because of that? well maybe i am but since it's out in the public, even ignorant me can say what he thinks of it.

 

[gdmcclintock]

Someone said earlier in this thread, "Cindy Sherman is probably the most important photographer in fine art in the past forty years. She has been exhibited everywhere, written about voluminously, collected voraciously."

This statement is nonsense. 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.