Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-21-2011, 06:06 PM   #1
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
Print Sells For $3.9 Million At Auction, The Highest Ever For A Photograph

Cindy Sherman Print Sells For $3.9 Million At Auction, The Highest Ever For A Photograph | Popular Photography



05-21-2011, 06:31 PM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
imtheguy's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Virginia Beach
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,950
I don't get it, not at all. I realize I wouldn't know art if I fell over it but $3.9m for that? I better stick to wildlife.
05-21-2011, 11:02 PM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Jools's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SW Wisconsin by way of Venezuela
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,394
Wish I know the background of the image but....
Wowzers.. there is hope for all of us with the right agencies.
Could it be someone who enjoys orange hues?
05-21-2011, 11:29 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 317
This should be the rallying cry for all people that the rich, have tooooo much money.. I mean COME ON!

05-21-2011, 11:49 PM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,475
Who in the hell is Cindy Sherman?
05-22-2011, 03:31 PM   #6
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
Just further proof that to be a successful and famous artist it is better to have a great PR person than it is to have talent.

In fact, talent may well be a hinderence to success as a "fine art" photographer... For proof. Just take a look at some of the crap at www.cindysherman.com

The other defining attribute of a successful "fine art" photographer seems to be able to say with a straight face that there are deep artistic meanings behind your crappy photos.

Last edited by MRRiley; 05-22-2011 at 03:46 PM.
05-22-2011, 04:09 PM   #7
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Just further proof that to be a successful and famous artist it is better to have a great PR person than it is to have talent.

In fact, talent may well be a hinderence to success as a "fine art" photographer... For proof. Just take a look at some of the crap at www.cindysherman.com

The other defining attribute of a successful "fine art" photographer seems to be able to say with a straight face that there are deep artistic meanings behind your crappy photos.
None of that changes the fact that somebody bid that amount for a snapshot of a sunburned girl laying on a linoleum floor (because that is all I see in that picture). It does however demonstrate why I roll my eyes and shake my head whenever someone starts lamenting artistic about photos.

05-22-2011, 04:12 PM   #8
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
Jeff.... as P.T. Barnum said so well.... "There's a sucker born every Minute!"

Mike

p.s. I actually believe the girl in the photo IS Cindy Sherman. She is a pretty big narcassist as well and many if not most of her photos are self portraits.

05-22-2011, 04:18 PM   #9
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
Before this thread I never even knew she existed so........ I still think most 'fine art' photos are crap. I see better photos here on the forums every day. Then again, no one is paying money for mine so what do I know...

05-22-2011, 04:48 PM - 2 Likes   #10
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Amazing how some feel fine parading their ignorance of contemporary photography on this forum. I would have thought anyone with two seconds could find out who Cindy Sherman. Hint: There's this thing called Google. In fact, she has produced lots of great work and is a pivotal late twentieth-century photographer. I had seen her in exhibition in the late eighties and I'm hardly an expert.

Sherman practically invented the entire craze of self-portraiture that tens of thousands of people engage in everyday. Check Flickr etc. for this phenomenon. That might be important, depending on how you view social interactions and image-making.

However I don't think this is one of her best works. It is one of her more famous works, which matters more in the art market.

If people have money they will spend it. Not sure why anyone has a problem with that. If you do, try to stamp out the causes of extreme capital concentration in the first place. I'd be on your side in that fight, but complaining about art prices? That is so lame.
05-22-2011, 05:23 PM   #11
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
Who are you talking to? I'm guessing that self portraiture was a part of photography LONG before CS ever came onto the scene. I guess I could be wrong about that though.

05-22-2011, 06:03 PM - 1 Like   #12
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,276
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

Last edited by MRRiley; 05-22-2011 at 06:25 PM.
05-22-2011, 07:28 PM   #13
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
I'm guessing that self portraiture was a part of photography LONG before CS ever came onto the scene.
I did not mean to say she invented self-portraiture itself, obviously. But rather she was a pioneer of the type of photography certain people now obsessively practice in the social media, to wit, the relentless pursuit of alternative self-image as a reflection of the mediated body. That's why so many of the images are ugly. Though entire series she did are also very beautiful, perfect little simulacra of film sets and other virtual worlds. Her series as a corpse are incredible, but I haven't seen them in years.

If you are not into issues of representation, media, commodification, body image or gender then perhaps she is boring. But if you're not into any of those things maybe you are boring too.
05-22-2011, 07:32 PM   #14
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
But if you're not into any of those things maybe you are boring too.
I would like somebody to point out where I ever said otherwise

05-23-2011, 07:11 AM   #15
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffJS Quote
I would like somebody to point out where I ever said otherwise
My statement was of the form "if this, then that". This construction does not imply the initial term is true.

And at this point I think it plain there is no common ground for understanding. Best of luck railing against art you don't like. I hope it brings you much joy, though I can't possibly see how.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auction, million, photograph, print
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Peter Lik Photograph sells for $1 Million interested_observer Photographic Technique 9 05-29-2011 01:22 PM
Who has the highest number of shutter actuations with K10d, 20d? jeff knight Pentax DSLR Discussion 29 01-14-2011 02:20 PM
Mount Kinabalu, Highest Peak in South East Asia Pentaxie Monthly Photo Contests 2 05-12-2010 02:09 PM
Traditional print vs scan & print rodneysan Pentax Medium Format 8 05-06-2010 03:33 PM
Pentax K-x is has the highest number of clicks in the last 5 days ontarioexplorer Pentax News and Rumors 57 01-08-2010 09:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:33 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top