World's most expensive photo. Recently sold at Christie's for $3.89 Million USD. The previous highest priced photo is a diptych of the inside of a 99 cent store, which sold for $3.35 Million. Makes me give some thought to what we consider good photography, if these are or are not good photography, and why they appealed to someone enough to pay millions for them.
Umm that's what the market will bear? Of course it does help if you apply yourself, market yourself, and build a cohesive body of work. It's a foreign concept for those who's primary means of presenting work is to just toss the same old slab of used spagetti on the wall hoping this time it'll stick. That's stupidity.
which sold for $3.35 Million. Makes me give some thought to what we consider good photography, if these are or are not good photography, and why they appealed to someone enough to pay millions for them.
My guess is you can't just stop by your local art gallery and purchase a Cindy Sherman. This camera sold for $775,000. Did that purchase have any bearing on what you consider a good camera?
World's most expensive photo. Recently sold at Christie's for $3.89 Million USD. The previous highest priced photo is a diptych of the inside of a 99 cent store, which sold for $3.35 Million. Makes me give some thought to what we consider good photography, if these are or are not good photography, and why they appealed to someone enough to pay millions for them.
You're not really in the realm of photography here. You're in the realm of the Art market, where Jackson Pollock rains supreme. This raises the question of whether you can accurately put a monetary value on a work of art, a question easily answered: no. The Art market is speculative, like all markets. One reason you buy a piece of art is because you're gambling that someone else will buy it for more $$$ later.
yanko's example of the most expensive camera is particularly apt. There is a historical/contextual reason why Cindy Sherman's photo is worth so much. This photo is part of a series (series isn't the exact word: something between series and oeuvre) of photos that simulate movie stills... but the movies don't exist. This is her concept, her larger contribution to art. You can't separate the individual photo from that: it's part of the "value."
Hell, I'd sell my entire archive for that price :)
Well if DPC were the real world Got Cheese would probably fetch as much. Well, maybe a few years ago when you were banished. That would have upped the price.
What ? You were kicked out? Why? I thought I was the only one to get permanently banned and then get a new trial !
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Hell, I'd sell my entire archive for that price :)
Well if DPC were the real world Got Cheese would probably fetch as much. Well, maybe a few years ago when you were banished. That would have upped the price.
Value of her name, not the picture.. it could have been a apple on an stump and would have sold for tons. To me, that sort of thing is just stupid.. I mean good for her for whatever, but really its just all kind of silly.
Hell, I'd sell my entire archive for that price :)
Well if DPC were the real world Got Cheese would probably fetch as much. Well, maybe a few years ago when you were banished. That would have upped the price.
It's worth that much because someone is willing to pay that much.
Exactly. As the article explains, it wasn't so much the photo, but when you get two collectors battling it out for something, then it gets crazy. They both wanted to win.
As a long-time fan of Cindy Sherman and her work, I'd say it's worth every penny and I hope she got some of it.
Her 'body of work' is far more than the photography you see in the example given, but is, in its own way, represented by it.
For example, and perhaps one more easily understood, the ephemeral work of Andy Goldworthy is mostly represented by his photography of his creations. But, "it's just a photograph?" Of course not.
