$3,890,500!!!

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

Cindy Sherman's photos are all about creating the sense of a movie scene, like we're looking at a still from a film, but we have no concrete idea about the broader plot or context. You fill in the rest of the story, but her pictures plant the seed, and in my opinion, a very well fertilized seed.

2F/2F · May 12, 2011

No picture should be worth that much money...In fact, no nuthin' should be worth that much money.

largely · May 12, 2011

2F/2F said:
No picture should be worth that much money...In fact, no nuthin' should be worth that much money.

I agree 100% but then I guess anything is worth what someone will pay for it.

Larry

2F/2F · May 12, 2011

largely said:
I agree 100% but then I guess anything is worth what someone will pay for it.

Larry

My comment was specifically in regards to the sanity and values of those particular people.

MaximusM3 · May 12, 2011

largely said:
I agree 100% but then I guess anything is worth what someone will pay for it.

Larry

You're exactly right and let's not forget that. Arguing about what something is worth to someone who has plenty of money to spend is all but futile. Discussing arts in general under this umbrella can lead to endless and pointless arguments. I think Picasso's work is total crap and would never hang one in my house, even if I could afford it. Others think it's great and pay millions for it. Beauty is ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder and criticizing someone who can afford to pay millions for what he/she believes is beautiful in his/her eyes is always in bad taste IMO.

As always, the key word here is: SUBJECTIVE.

Jehu · May 12, 2011

Eric Rose said:
I think this is great. The more the merrier. To bad Cindy doesn't get a cut of this.

Even better... can you imagine how much she can get for anything she sells now?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

MaximusM3 · May 12, 2011

2F/2F said:
My comment was specifically in regards to the sanity and values of those particular people.

So you're basically saying that anyone who may work very hard to earn lots of money, is an insane idiot for spending it on things that YOU value as overpriced/unnecessary, and their values are skewed? You're kidding, right?

Vaughn · May 12, 2011

jnanian said:
you have to lay on the floor yourself! and make a stylized film-still-self-portrait like that...

Making the old joke funny again;

How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb?

One Hundred -- one to change it and 99 to say, "I could have done that!"

Its perceived value goes beyond the actual image/photograph, and gets into historical value and its place in the development of photography as an art form. Far from the mere question of whether one likes it or not.

Vaughn

Edited to add: I suppose if one makes multi-millions of dollars a year, buys a 4 million dollar photo, donates it to a museum, one would get a nice tax break, and kudos from the art society.

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

MaximusM3 said:
So you're basically saying that anyone who may work very hard to earn lots of money, is an insane idiot for spending it on things that YOU value as overpriced/unnecessary, and their values are skewed? You're kidding, right?

It's so easy for people to think of themselves as David vs. Goliath, and Goliath is invariably a big art snob with old money or something, and so of course we throw rotten tomatoes and stones, instead of trying to understand something deeper about the world, about art, and about what might make you/me/us a Goliath someday.

edit: I think Vaughn is right on the money.

Steve Smith · May 12, 2011

MaximusM3 said:
So you're basically saying that anyone who may work very hard to earn lots of money, is an insane idiot for spending it on things that YOU value as overpriced/unnecessary, and their values are skewed? You're kidding, right?

I would agree with that. Why should you pay stupidly high prices for things just because you can afford it?

Steve.

MaximusM3 · May 12, 2011

Steve Smith said:
I would agree with that. Why should you pay stupidly high prices for things just because you can afford it?

Steve.

hmmm...because I like it and I want it The fact that the price may be high, can only be viewed under the "subjective" label. What is high for you and me, may be peanuts for others.

bblhed · May 12, 2011

Vaughn said:
Making the old joke funny again;

How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb?

One Hundred -- one to change it and 99 to say, "I could have done that!"

Its perceived value goes beyond the actual image/photograph, and gets into historical value and its place in the development of photography as an art form. Far from the mere question of whether one likes it or not.

Vaughn

Edited to add: I suppose if one makes multi-millions of dollars a year, buys a 4 million dollar photo, donates it to a museum, one would get a nice tax break, and kudos from the art society.

I can see why Warhol, Negel, Alver and Picasso are art, I might not like their stuff, but they did their own particular type of thing FIRST, they were original.

This photo on the other hand reminds me of the the story of the story about how Picasso came up with his style. Picasso came up with his style by looking at photos taken by regular people that had people cut in half, without heads or just poorly framed and he decided to paint like that to see how it would be received. I'm sorry but there were millions of poorly framed photos out there before this one came along and there will be many more to come especially with the whole LOMO shoot from the hip thing. I get the whole lost desperation and futility of the daily life struggle thing of the photo, I just don't get the lousy framing.

Early Riser · May 12, 2011

This is why people look at photography and wonder why it's considered an art, scratch their heads and say to themselves,"my kid could have done that". I'm sorry but if you took Sherman's name off that and showed it to 100 people no one would $100 for it. And a C-print no less. That has all the longevity of milk. What is wrong with the art world? Is just all about status and name dropping? Does anyone really believe that this is a significant piece of art?

Vaughn · May 12, 2011

I think the framing is perfect -- tight and full of tension. But that just goes to show that it is all subjective.

ER -- all depends on which 100 people you showed it to. But in the end, one can not separate the print from the art world (name, history, significance in the development of photography, the hype, etc)...especially since it is the world of art that it was sold in.

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

Yes, I do believe it is a significant piece of art, not that I would normally go around parading that belief, but in light of such ridiculous hostility, I for one will stand up for it.

I'm sorry, framed badly? I happen to find it impeccably framed; I like how the figure takes up the majority of the frame, from her face with the unique expression to the 70's tile floor, to the snippet of the classifieds in her hand. Notice how the light coming from her legs is blue, and how just a bit of her leg is visible in the lower left corner, revealed by a small fold in her skirt. Her foot is bent around to her back, her face just perfectly nestled in the corner, while her red fingernail polish adds a bit of red just poking out of the shadow.

Show me another picture with a horizon, a tree, and a stream, or a bridge and I'll shoot myself. Give me something with intrigue, give me something with a unique perspective that confuses the squares... THAT'S ART.

Don't you realize, art is not just about paint on a canvas, or a photograph of some subject, it's about the people who created and when they created it and in what context or environment it was created.

*soap box down*

ArtTwisted · May 12, 2011

I would hang it on my wall, its a beautiful image and she is an amazing photographer and artist. You also cant rate the value of something by separating it from its creator.

jglass · May 12, 2011

holmburgers said:
Show me another picture with a horizon, a tree, and a stream, or a bridge and I'll shoot myself. Give me something with intrigue, give me something with a unique perspective that confuses the squares... THAT'S ART.

Don't you realize, art is not just about paint on a canvas, or a photograph of some subject, it's about the people who created and when they created it and in what context or environment it was created.

*soap box down*

Exactly!

If I see another beautifully toned b&w of an old barn I'll scream!

Thomas Bertilsson · May 12, 2011

Whether you think it's art or not is individual and subjective. Each and every person that looks at the picture in question (or any picture) will assign their own values to it. To some people there is more value in the picture than to others, and to some rare individual it's worth so much that they are willing to part with four million dollars to acquire it, more than most people earn in a lifetime. That's quite amazing, if you think about it.

There are no absolutes. There are opinions and personal experience, and you can't judge somebody else' taste or preference just because you don't agree.

Vaughn · May 12, 2011

holmburgers said:
...Show me another picture with a horizon, a tree, and a stream, or a bridge and I'll shoot myself...

Or, heaven forbid, another head-and-shoulders or 3/4 portrait!

Vaughn

jglass · May 12, 2011

Try this one on: a Richard Prince from the same auction.

Why was it worth $1 million MORE than the Cindy Sherman?

Hint: it's not really about the quality of the art, but the quality of the investment. The quality of the art is an entirely different question that is NOT dependent on the marketing of this object.

So to that extent, I actually disagree with Thomas and Greg and Holmburgers and myself, two posts up! The OP is about the price paid for an investment. The artistic importance of the piece is only a factor in that larger issue, when it comes to an auction price.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 12, 2011

jglass said:
Try this one on: a Richard Prince from the same auction.

Why was it worth $1 million MORE than the Cindy Sherman?

Hint: it's not really about the quality of the art, but the quality of the investment. The quality of the art is an entirely different question that is NOT dependent on the marketing of this object.

So to that extent, I actually disagree with Thomas and Greg and Holmburgers and myself, two posts up! The OP is about the price paid for an investment. The artistic importance of the piece is only a factor in that larger issue, when it comes to an auction price.

Did you notice that my argument applies equally, whether you're making the investment based on love for the art, or love for the investment?
Either way, you make an interesting point!

pbromaghin · May 12, 2011

Greg Davis - thank you for explaining the photographers intent. Now the photo finally makes sense and isn't just one of aunt Mabel's rejects from Walgreen's.

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

pbromaghin said:
Greg Davis - thank you for explaining the photographers intent. Now the photo finally makes sense and isn't just one of aunt Mabel's rejects from Walgreen's.

If that's what your Aunt Mabel's photographs look like, you need to get her an AGENT!

No, but seriously, this is the kind of nose-up interpretation of "modern art" that is all too prevalent.

Greg has provided an interpretation, but it is only one of an infinite number of interpretations. Modern art is supposed to be thought provoking, and yet I think a lot of people get turned off because they don't agree with the interpretations that are generally touted.

*caution, subjective opinion ahead*

Take from it what you will, but if you're taking away that it's just a poorly, sloppily composed photograph because it's on a dutch angle and "tightly cropped" then I objectively think you're wrong and I'm judging you on the basis that you obviously have a limited imagination.
_____________________

I think the pink elephant in this room is that there is a huge social rift between people that like and don't like this kind of art.

Luckily there are people who remain level headed and have a zen like patience (Thomas), but I guess I just woke up with a bit of a fire today....

:

holmburgers · May 12, 2011

And I do think you've offered a good one.

puptent · May 12, 2011

I'm really thinking that I shouldn't have sold it on e-bay for $29 plus shipping.
But seriouslly, this argument seems to go on and on, what is art, and what is it worth? In some cases I think it might have more to do with the agent and the publicist than the artist, or the work. If I had an extra 4 million laying around, what would I buy to float my boat? All you need for these kind of prices is an auction and two people who want it VERY much. The Shore thread seemed to home in on the MUNDANE aspect of his work, but not here. So, what I really want to know is, did she jump or was she pushed?

$3,890,500!!!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency