Most expensive photo ever

jaybeeveedub

Dades wrote: »

simply shows that some people have way too much money.

yeah.... anyone here with a hasselblad.... surrender it to the state... a 1000D with kit lens is sufficient for your needs

and anyone with a P45 back... straight to the Gulag!!

Dades

jaybeeveedub wrote: »

yeah.... anyone here with a hasselblad.... surrender it to the state... a 1000D with kit lens is sufficient for your needs

and anyone with a P45 back... straight to the Gulag!!

I've no idea what you're talking about, or what my quote has to do with it.

the_monkey

sineadw wrote: »

Matter of opinion. I wouldn't be paying almost 4 million, but Cindy Sherman is friggin awesome.

Perhaps she is , but that photo is shiite ... and it is her name that sold it,
this is the annoying thing, then an unknown photographer could produce a really really great photo but it might never get famous as he has no name.

jaybeeveedub

Dades wrote: »

I've no idea what you're talking about, or what my quote has to do with it.

I was only yanking your chain... the last bit just sounded totally marxist!!

Eirebear

the_monkey wrote: »

Perhaps she is , but that photo is shiite ... and it is her name that sold it,
this is the annoying thing, then an unknown photographer could produce a really really great photo but it might never get famous as he has no name.

I could write a really good song, but without the right number of factors, and my ability to use those factors to my advantage - no one would hear it.

Does that mean (Insert popular band here) should rip up their contracts, stop touring and recording and protest outside their local government buildings untill someone gives me money for the song? Of course not, and i'll just carry on writing songs untill i either make money out of it, or i stop getting pleasure from what i do.

Sherman didnt force anyone to pay 3m for her photograph, it was an auction and people payed what they felt it was worth.

Yes, much of that value is down to the photographers name, much of it is down to the pomp and ceremony of the art world - but that doesnt change the fact that someone valued that image, at that price.

Wether you or i think it is "****e" is completely meaningless in this equation, and the fact that someone out there in the flickrverse might take a "better" photograph doesnt matter either.

FWIW - i like the image, i like the concept behind the series and i like Sherman's importance in Photographic history.
Would i pay 4m for it? I doubt i'll ever have 4m to pay for anything.

(Also, i havnt written a song since i was about 16...and calling it a song is maybe a stretch too far...)

magicbastarder

there are literally thousands of landscape photographs posted to these boards over the years which are sharper, better exposed, more saturated and vivid, etc. etc.

but that's the point. there are *thousands* of them.

Eirebear

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are literally thousands of landscape photographs posted to these boards over the years which are sharper, better exposed, more saturated and vivid, etc. etc.

but that's the point. there are *thousands* of them.

So what are you saying here?

If i DONT turn my latest shot taken from a well known vantage point at a well known landmark visited by thousands every year in a garish over saturated, tone mapped eyesore, then it might be worth a wee bit more?

spinandscribble

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are literally thousands of landscape photographs posted to these boards over the years which are sharper, better exposed, more saturated and vivid, etc. etc.

but that's the point. there are *thousands* of them.

yup literally thousands of them, lots of technical skill and lots of people will prefer them, the colours get that little wow of of the viewer without requiring much further thought because that wow was the purpose of the shot. Fine art photography like cindy sherman's isn't everyones cup of tea, the same way hdr isn't others.

Jesus Wept

No wonder her wikipedia has a picture of her laughing.

mehfesto

Man if someone as talented as Cindy Sherman is getting heat in this thread, I cannot wait 'til some of the people here discover Nan Goldin.

CabanSail

The-Rigger wrote: »

No wonder her wikipedia has a picture of her laughing.

I don't know, but I would be surprised if Cindy Sherman will see any of that money. She has probably been paid long ago when that work was originally sold. She's just the Artist, it's the collectors and the dealers who would be getting rich.

Renn

Not to the same value but reminds me of this. Some people are suckers, not saying the person who bought this is though.

ThOnda

When I saw few pictures, I found them a bit odd. Interestingly odd. Learning about the whole body of work, they fit in perfectly and everything made sense.
Of course, everybody could create compiled and well put together body of work, create few projects like that that would be world-wide accepted and praised, and then watch their prints being sold from one collector to another for big money. Just do it and stop complaining that you don't do that
Talking about snaps, what about (today found on fun-server) pictures by Arthur Elgort? Don't they look like a snaps too?
If god didn't want us to create art, he would not give us brains and covers for our fun body parts