[deadwolfbones]

Seeing that a lot of the negative comments about Sherman are from me I will assume that I am the primary person being accused of ignorance here. Think what you want. I for one am quite aware of who Cindy Sherman is.

I simply bemoan the fact that the art world has embraced several "photographers," Sherman among them, whom I believe to be much more talented at self-marketing and promotion than they are at photography. Be it what it may, they have succeeded in convincing the movers and shakers that they are "significant."

Mike

The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't art, or that it's not significant.

[JeffJS]

The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't art, or that it's not significant.

.... and the fact that you Do like it Doesn't make it Art, Or significant .

[Ratmagiclady]

The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't art, or that it's not significant.

This it may be, but in all fairness it *does* kinda look like it was shot on Kodacolor II and someone put a big name on it.


Especially in light of my last post, maybe this is why, (nor will I hasten to say 'I don't like,' ) .... but I'm thinking whatever group of people saw 'four million' there are operating somewhere I don't care to be.

[Dma110]

Spooky
I do not believe I said anything re postcards, calendars, or what I would hang on my walls. While I have seen some excellent work on both calendars and very few postcards, I find most of them banal, trite, and hackneyed.
I do think, however, just because a small percentage of people who are "experts" proclaim something as "fine art" does not always make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I recall several years ago there was a exhibition where the artist displayed piles of dog feces as art. Experts gave long and involved explanations about the deep symbolism of these artistic masterpieces.
Fine art will stand the test of time. In 50-60 years ( if we are still here, since the world ends this october) I doubt Cindy Sherman will be listed as a great, groundbreaking photographer. That if she is remembered at all.
Art has always been in the eye of the beholder. I doubt most people would behold her work as great art worth 3.9 million.
Bye the way, your assumption that because I feel my work is not up to the quality of work that a lot of forum members post, that I do or cannot recognize or appreciate fine art. Just because I have a different opinion
than you of the quality of her work does not mean I have pictures of dogs playing poker on my walls

[eddie1960]

So, would you define Fine Art photography as photography that is POSTCARD worthy?
...as something you would hang on YOUR wall?
...as something YOU would spend money on?
...as something you would see on a TYPICAL calendar?

Exactly, Art should challenge a viewer and make them think not all art is meant to be a pretty picture. Limiting a view of art to Adams or Bresson or Weston steiglitz , or old masters in paining is a very narrow stifling view.
Regurgitating the style of predecessor may sell work for you, but it won't bring anything new to the viewer, and in reality cannot represent the time you live in. the world changes, art documents and challenges our views

[JeffJS]

..... Art should challenge a viewer and make them think not all art is meant to be a pretty picture......

I don't have any argument with that. What I have an argument against (really) is snobbish individuals who feel the need to call Ignorance when somebody doesn't like said 'art'.

[Nesster]

Agree 100% with MRRiley. What she is showing cannot be considered fine art. Ive seen better stuff from a kid with a 110 instamatic. Fine art is Ansel Adams or a large portion of images here on the fourm by you guys. My opinion of my own work is quite low, but even I can do better

Actually, what she is showing is fine contemporary art that happens to use photography as a medium.

That's different than "fine photography".

Where would you place some of the "fine photography" greats whose main interest wasn't the ultimate technical quality? Any kid with a 110 instamatic could match the technical quality.

Also, your comment amused me greatly as we've seen similar said about some very famous modern painters - Picasso, for example. And the Abstract Expressionists.

More post-Warholian is the hyper commercialism and gigantism of many contemporary artists - Cindy one of them. A lot of us hate that! Yet, looked at from a couple of povs: isn't this simply an artistic reflection of current society? And since Warhol, hasn't the conceptual dematerialized, leaving the material aspect as something sometimes cleverly done, but essentially mass produced craft? What else we consume or use does that remind us of? In the best post-modern sense the artists and their audiences are ironically - but seriously - playing the game as a game. Which to me sums up a lot of our politics as well.

[Dma110]

Believe it it not Eddie, I agree with you. Great art should stimulate the senses and make us think.

[-Spooky-]

I don't have a problem at all with any one liking or not liking a piece of art, be it a sculpture, photograph, drawing, et cetera. I have a problem with people deciding that something is not art because they don't like it or they can "do better."

[Dma110]

Spooky. That I can understand and accept.

[melander]

Second most expencive photograph, $3.4milion

http://pbmo.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/99-cent-ii-diptychon.jpg



I dont get it...

[eddie1960]

Second most expencive photograph, $3.4milion

http://pbmo.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/99-cent-ii-diptychon.jpg



I dont get it...

It is well shot, composition is good, need to know the context it was placed in of course (my guess is a statement on consumerism and society) that being said it really does nothing for me specifically. It was a huge diptytch with a unique print style
there were 3 sold total value of the sales would make it the most valuable image i would think

99 Cent II Diptychon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He was one of the first to really use digital image manipulation (which was done here)

As it is this is not what i would define as his best piece i like the one below amongst others much more (the aerial landscapes using sattelite imaging are pretty amazing as well)




I'll add that the 99 cent dipythchon likely needs to be seen in person, it's bloody enormous, and a web shot couldn't possibly do justice to this type of work

[eddie1960]

I'll also add that I prefer all the images discussed here to the million dollar peter lik, which is a great landscape but not my thing at all

[lithos]

It is well shot

I hope he used some of the proceeds to buy a wide angle without that hideous sharpness fall-off on the sides.

[Lloydy]

I have to agree with Jeff here Robin... There is very little "pivotal" work in Sherman's body of work other than her predilection for sexually disjointed "exploitation of women" imagery and even that is done, I believe, more for it's shock value than anything else. I guess in that way it does qualify as "art" in that it makes people think... but I am a firm believer that great art involves not only the artist's intellectual or emotional intent to communicate a specific message, but also a mastery of their craft. Sherman's work to me, is devoid of any "craft" beyond that of the average person on the street with a point and shoot camera or cell phone and is largely devoid of more than superficial meaning.

Face it... most "art" created by famous or favored "artists" is far more valuable simply because of "who they are" or who the "art world" thinks they are than because of the actual quality of their work. I will cite both Richard Prince AND Andy Warhol as prominent examples.

For an example of Sherman's work that I feel illustrates this last point perfectly, here is a photo that once hung in the Gagosian Gallery in Beverly Hills, CA...

Copyright - Cindy Sherman (as if anyone else would claim it as their work)

If anyone here on PF had taken and posted that photo, regardless of any deep artistic claims to some transcendental meaning... it would have been torn to shreds in PYP and it would certainly never be hung in ANY minor art gallery, much less one which also hangs Van Goghs and Picassos.

Mike

You could hang that over the mantlepiece to keep the kids away from the fire.