$3.9 million photo

Started May 12, 2011 | Discussions
BAK Forum Pro • Posts: 25,650
$3.9 million photo
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: $3.9 million photo

Man, I have never understood the appeal of Sherman's work... a single print for $3.9 million???

I'm appalled.

sony_a500_king Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: $3.9 million photo

this photo is pathetic in my view not worth the paper its printed on.

Taddy Regular Member • Posts: 337
Re: $3.9 million photo

Wouldn't pay $3.9 cents for it

Joergen Geerds Senior Member • Posts: 1,758
Re: amateur hour comments

MrMojo wrote:

Man, I have never understood the appeal of Sherman's work... a single print for $3.9 million??? I'm appalled.

sony_a500_king wrote:

this photo is pathetic in my view not worth the paper its printed on.

Taddy wrote:

Wouldn't pay $3.9 cents for it

Even if I may sound repetitive, but this is the pro-forum, isn't?

Why do we get comments that are well worthy of the beginner feedback, or the galleries and competition forum?

Sherman clearly falls under the category "art", and with any other art work, some people like it, some don't... but comments like the ones above make you sound like you just flew into a big city for the first time from the middle of nowhere, visiting a museum, and complaining about art...

fashionphotographer Forum Member • Posts: 94
Re: $3.9 million photo

It's good to see photography commanding higher and higher auction values. It certainly isn't a bad thing for the photographic medium to be increasingly considered serious art....

Even if it isn't the sort of serious art some of us might want on our own walls, it's definitely a good thing for photographs to start entering the rarefied 7 figure world that was once reserved only for "traditional" art.

It's also worth noting that they don't just hand out MacArthur Fellowships to everyone.

-- hide signature --

Nick

Fashion Photographer Nick Zantop
http://www.nickzantop.com

John Regular Member • Posts: 487
Re: $3.9 million photo

My parents had linoleum just like that back in the late 60's early 70's.
--
John M Samuels

Hawaiian Punch Senior Member • Posts: 1,004
Right On! (nt)

(nt)

ColourBlind Contributing Member • Posts: 530
Re: $3.9 million photo

I wish someone could explain art to me, because I obviously miss the point entirely.

When I see work like this, it seems to be the artists name that commands the price, because surely it cannot be the content.

tonywh Contributing Member • Posts: 821
Re: $3.9 million photo

I get realy miffed when I see an image that would have been deleted on taking and wouldnt be consired fit for entry in a local camera club display selling for silly money. Its that it not me getting the money that realy gets me.

Chato
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 47,070
It's not a good photo

Hawaiian Punch wrote:

(nt)

And it's not great Art. Now of course what is "good art" is often in the eye of the beholder, but I'll err, stick my neck out here and say it ain't worth almost four million bucks. If it is, I'm checking into the Betty Ford, Art Withdrawal Rehab clinic...

Dave

nelsonal Senior Member • Posts: 2,464
Re: amateur hour comments

It's my own personal feeling that the current contemporary art world is mostly a matter of personality, paying ones dues, and networking rather than creating visual specticles. I find no other explaination for works like Hurst (I'm referring to his dot and spin art done entirely by aprentices), Twombly, and especially Ryman among many others.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: amateur hour comments

Joergen Geerds wrote:

Even if I may sound repetitive, but this is the pro-forum, isn't?

Why do we get comments that are well worthy of the beginner feedback, or the galleries and competition forum?

Sherman clearly falls under the category "art", and with any other art work, some people like it, some don't... but comments like the ones above make you sound like you just flew into a big city for the first time from the middle of nowhere, visiting a museum, and complaining about art...

Joergen, your post gets the award for the most condescending comment in recent memory; care to post what you consider to be a "pro comment?"

I'm not complaining about "art," just Cindy Sherman's "art," specifically the photo series that produced the print in question. I didn't get it when the prints were originally shown some 30 years ago and they haven't improved with age IMO...

And just because the MacArthur Foundation saw fit to reward Sherman with a so-called "genius grant" doesn't necessarily make her a "genius." But I grant that she may be a genius when it comes to marketing her work in the often-mystifying "art market."

I'm all for photography being recognized as being worthy of the label "art" but Sherman's work is simply not representative of the best photography out there, again IMO (that means "in my opinion").

Just because a sucker is willing to pay almost $4 million for that print doesn't make it worthy of the price IMO .

Ho72
Ho72 Senior Member • Posts: 2,353
Meh...

Whatever.

I once saw a winning shot from what I gather was a rather prestigious photo competition. It consisted of two, nearly in-focus chairs. Or maybe it was only one chair... don't recall and don't care.

Not long afterward, I gave up trying to understand art as defined by critics.

Chato
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 47,070
It's very simple

Ho72 wrote:

Whatever.

I once saw a winning shot from what I gather was a rather prestigious photo competition. It consisted of two, nearly in-focus chairs. Or maybe it was only one chair... don't recall and don't care.

Not long afterward, I gave up trying to understand art as defined by critics.

And I'm surprised that you don't get it.

"If you put a frame around it, it's Art."

And I had to read a 472 page book in order to find that out....

Sheesh, guy could have just written the above and saved a lot of paper.

Dave

PicOne
PicOne Veteran Member • Posts: 6,932
Right -click, "Save As", print your own

why pay $3.9 million ??

BAK wrote:

Do you think there's CA and is the Bokeh nice?

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/05/cindy-sherman-print-sells-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp

BAK

-- hide signature --

'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron

RobG67
RobG67 Contributing Member • Posts: 818
Re: $3.9 million photo

I think I vomited something like that after a rum-fuelled party back in '83...

How can anyone even contemplate paying that much money for anything, regardless of who it's by?

-- hide signature --

Rob.

Free advice, freely given. If you don't like it, I'll refund you twice the amount you paid me.

arizonadesertrat
arizonadesertrat Senior Member • Posts: 1,333
Re: amateur hour comments

Had I taken this picture it would never have seen the light of day. These days art is no longer about the piece, it's all about the artists name and the network in which he operates.

There are artist who could take a photograph of a dog turd on a sidewalk and someone would deem it "art" and pay through the nose for it.

Joergen Geerds wrote:

MrMojo wrote:

Man, I have never understood the appeal of Sherman's work... a single print for $3.9 million??? I'm appalled.

sony_a500_king wrote:

this photo is pathetic in my view not worth the paper its printed on.

Taddy wrote:

Wouldn't pay $3.9 cents for it

Even if I may sound repetitive, but this is the pro-forum, isn't?

Why do we get comments that are well worthy of the beginner feedback, or the galleries and competition forum?

Sherman clearly falls under the category "art", and with any other art work, some people like it, some don't... but comments like the ones above make you sound like you just flew into a big city for the first time from the middle of nowhere, visiting a museum, and complaining about art...

-- hide signature --

Fiat Lux

 arizonadesertrat's gear list:arizonadesertrat's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P7000 Nikon D800 Nikon D7000 Nikon D300 Nikon D70s +12 more
PenguinPhotoCo Veteran Member • Posts: 6,284
It /is/ worth $3.9m!

Just not to you.

I don't get the appeal of it either, but apparently at least a couple of art dealers do. We're debating it's value and they've got the cash to pay for it and apparently thing they'll turn a profit on it too.

Who's the ignorant fool? I"d have to say us....
--
If I knew how to take a good picture I'd do it every time.

 PenguinPhotoCo's gear list:PenguinPhotoCo's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM +9 more
Chato
Chato Forum Pro • Posts: 47,070
I have to ask you a question

PenguinPhotoCo wrote:

Just not to you.

I don't get the appeal of it either, but apparently at least a couple of art dealers do. We're debating it's value and they've got the cash to pay for it and apparently thing they'll turn a profit on it too.

Who's the ignorant fool? I"d have to say us....

If you or I put such an image up in a gallery, would someone buy it? Seriously is the mere fact that someone spent real money on this picture proof positive that it's actually good?

In all seriousness can you dispute the idea that this image sold ONLY because of the name of the photographer?

Should the two of us then learn how to take awful shots? Trust me on this, it's easy to take awful shots. True, there is awful and then there's "awful," but I can jack up my ISO, heave some filters onto my lens, and make some images that can match hers...

Dave

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads