Print Sells For $3.9 Million At Auction, The Highest Ever For A Photograph

jogiba · 05-21-2011, 06:06 PM

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

imtheguy · 05-21-2011, 06:31 PM

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.

Jools · 05-21-2011, 11:02 PM

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?

Chwisch87 · 05-21-2011, 11:29 PM

This should be the rallying cry for all people that the rich, have tooooo much money.. I mean COME ON!

wildman · 05-21-2011, 11:49 PM

Who in the hell is Cindy Sherman?

MRRiley · 05-22-2011, 03:31 PM

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.

JeffJS · 05-22-2011, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by MRRiley

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.

MRRiley · 05-22-2011, 04:12 PM

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.

JeffJS · 05-22-2011, 04:18 PM

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...

**rparmar** · 05-22-2011, 04:48 PM - **2 Likes**

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.

JeffJS · 05-22-2011, 05:23 PM

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.

MRRiley · 05-22-2011, 06:03 PM - **1 Like**

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

**rparmar** · 05-22-2011, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

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.

JeffJS · 05-22-2011, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

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

**rparmar** · 05-23-2011, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by JeffJS

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.

05-21-2011, 06:06 PM	#1
jogiba 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

05-22-2011, 03:31 PM	#6
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	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, 06:03 PM - 1 Like	#12
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	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.

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

05-21-2011, 06:31 PM	#2
imtheguy Site Supporter 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
Jools Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: SW Wisconsin by way of Venezuela Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,398	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
Chwisch87 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
wildman Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Flyover America Posts: 4,469	Who in the hell is Cindy Sherman?

05-22-2011, 04:09 PM	#7
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by MRRiley 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
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	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
JeffJS 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
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	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
JeffJS 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, 07:28 PM	#13
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by JeffJS 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
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by rparmar 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
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by JeffJS 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.