$3,890,500!!!

holmburgers · May 13, 2011

benjiboy said:
Let me answer your question with another one, if this image was put on APUG Gallery by me as my work with an audience of almost fifty thousand photographers, how many of them would you think would be falling over themselves proclaiming what a great work of art it is ?

There's been a lot of great posts in the interim, but I just want to respond to this.

1st off, your question doesn't answer my question.

I don't know how I can answer such a hypothetical question, but if this picture were in the APUG gallery, yes, I do think it would catch my eye. Would I fall over myself? Well, let me answer that with a question... was I falling over myself about this work of art or just defending it?

Early Riser · May 13, 2011

Viola was supposed to be Voila!! The auto spell correct sometimes makes interesting decisions....

benjiboy · May 13, 2011

holmburgers said:
There's been a lot of great posts in the interim, but I just want to respond to this.

1st off, your question doesn't answer my question.

I don't know how I can answer such a hypothetical question, but if this picture were in the APUG gallery, yes, I do think it would catch my eye. Would I fall over myself? Well, let me answer that with a question... was I falling over myself about this work of art or just defending it?

I think we had just better agree to disagree because there is nothing that is going to persuade me that this photograph is art.

eclarke · May 13, 2011

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

Problem is..to some people it's not much money..like a tank fill up for most of us..

eclarke · May 13, 2011

holmburgers said:
There's been a lot of great posts in the interim, but I just want to respond to this.

1st off, your question doesn't answer my question.

I don't know how I can answer such a hypothetical question, but if this picture were in the APUG gallery, yes, I do think it would catch my eye. Would I fall over myself? Well, let me answer that with a question... was I falling over myself about this work of art or just defending it?

I said this earlier, in person this photograph probably has great presence that a crappy web image can't convey. Web images are NOT!!!! photographs..EC

Steve Smith · May 13, 2011

Early Riser said:
Viola was supposed to be Voila!! The auto spell correct sometimes makes interesting decisions....

That's why it's best not to use it!

Steve.

Steve Smith · May 13, 2011

benjiboy said:
I think we had just better agree to disagree because there is nothing that is going to persuade me that this photograph is art.

I think we have had this discussion before but just as there can be good music and bad music, there can also be good art and bad art.

Defining it as art doesn't imply that it is any good.

A piece of music can be poorly composed with horrible harmonies and played on out of tune instruments (sounds like one of my gigs!) but it's still music.

Likewise, a painting or photograph can have poor composition, terrible choice of colours and lighting, etc. but it's still art.

Steve.

Early Riser · May 13, 2011

jawarden said:
I agree, that is an incredibly small box.

Thankfully we can all have different sizes of "boxes", some big enough to include context and the passage of time as a foundation for understanding and appreciating works of art.

A small box in your opinion.

If you think I'm critical of Sherman's work you should check out what Duane Michals has to say about it. The first "chapter" of his book "Foto Follies" is all about her.

2F/2F · May 13, 2011

It is no longer just a photograph at this point. It is just a medium by which a rich person can shuffle their money/value around. Do you think very many people spend that much money on something simply because they truly enjoy it that much, and feel that it brings them 4 million dollars worth of joy in and of itself? Some do. Most do not. This is just investing, which is what makes it ridiculous to me. If you are going to invest, try something more interesting and important than a piece of flat art. Invent something. Start a business that supplies a need, and creates jobs. Start a gallery or a photography school if you really like photography and want to spend a bunch of money on it. Contribute to society. Have some imagination. But I guess that is harder than just buying a picture to resell it later.

eclarke · May 13, 2011

benjiboy said:
I think we had just better agree to disagree because there is nothing that is going to persuade me that this photograph is art.

On the Christie's site there was no mention that any art was sold, somebody bought a photograph they like...EC

removed account4 · May 13, 2011

Early Riser said:
A small box in your opinion.

If you think I'm critical of Sherman's work you should check out what Duane Michals has to say about it. The first "chapter" of his book "Foto Follies" is all about her.

yeah, but brian -
he's in a small room, not a small box

warden · May 13, 2011

Early Riser said:
A small box in your opinion.

If you think I'm critical of Sherman's work you should check out what Duane Michals has to say about it. The first "chapter" of his book "Foto Follies" is all about her.

Actually a "tiny" box, in your opinion. Said so yourself, right? I'm just agreeing with you, man.

The fact that Sherman's art (or any art for that matter) might require some knowledge, context, or participation from the viewer to fully appreciate it does not diminish it at all to me. If it diminishes it to you, that's cool, don't buy art like that.

I just read a summary and some reviews of the Duane Michals book. I'll pass, thanks anyway.

warden · May 13, 2011

jnanian said:
yeah, but brian -
he's in a small room, not a small box

Haha, no small box or small room for me. I'm in a giant stadium when it comes to art. The more the merrier.

jordanstarr · May 13, 2011

I don't know if it's been said or not...I honestly didn't want to read all 10 pages... but I think any photograph that sells for this much is a good reflection on photography being collectible as "art" and us film/darkroom users should be happy as this raises the bar of what our art is worth. Obviously, this is a bit of a generalization with some assumptions in it, but a big tide raises all boats.

Mike Crawford · May 13, 2011

Early Riser said:
Viola was supposed to be Voila!! The auto spell correct sometimes makes interesting decisions....

And I thought it was a subtle reference to Cindy Sherman's contemporary, Bill Viola!

Eric Rose · May 13, 2011

I'm still working on my steaming dog shit project. Once I get it finished I will sell it through one of those high faluten auction houses. That is once I have paid off one of the MOMA boys to fawn over it and call it "art". Maybe I should give my fellow APUG'rs first crack at it. Just think you could buy an 11x14 for $150 and in a few weeks turn around and sell it for millions!

Joe O'Brien · May 13, 2011

I have to say I agree with Jordanstarr. The fact that a photograph created with analog processes sold for this much reaffirms my belief that all of us here on this forum are invested in a viable art form.

As for what is art, my PERSONAL view is art is whatever the viewer sees to be art. Some may say this is just sidestepping the question, but I haven't found anyone that I've ever agreed on every piece with.

ianstamatic · May 13, 2011

This is awesome for photography as art and awesome for Cindy. Congrats !

Steve Smith · May 14, 2011

ianstamatic said:
This is awesome for photography as art

I don't think it is. Whilst we as photographers might think it's great that a photograph would sell for this much, the general public will look upon this with disbelief and I think it does more harm than good.

Steve.

keithwms · May 14, 2011

What possible harm could it do, Steve? Are people going to quit looking at photographs? Throw away their cameras? Quit their subscription to a photo magazine....? Throw a hissy fit and curse their day job?

If we're concerned about the credibility of the craft then this helps rather than hurts. This shows that a relatively unknown analogue photograph generated a huge amount of interest.

The way I see it, there is no harm done whatsoever. I can think of a lot of other recent events that do negatively affect the credibility of photographers as a whole. But certainly not this.

Steve Smith · May 14, 2011

keithwms said:
What possible harm could it do, Steve? Are people going to quit looking at photographs?

No. They are going to start thinking about them in the same way they think about some of the nonesense which gets entered for the Turner Prize and other items of conceptual art which sell for great sums usually to people with more interest in investment than art.

Steve.

keithwms · May 14, 2011

Okay but how has that hurt art as a whole? Perhaps it has attracted some kinds of impostors who mimic that and try to earn a quick buck from it. Does that really turn anyone away from the more genuine craft? (assuming one really thinks this isn't genuine) I don't think so. It's not a zero sum game. People who like paint splatters probably wouldn't buy my stuff anyway....

MikeSeb · May 14, 2011

brucemuir said:
this is just a farce imo
(dons asbestos coveralls)

Amen.

M.A.Longmore · May 14, 2011

jordanstarr said:
I don't know if it's been said or not...I honestly didn't want to read all 10 pages... but I think any photograph that sells for this much is a good reflection on photography being collectible as "art" and us film/darkroom users should be happy as this raises the bar of what our art is worth. Obviously, this is a bit of a generalization with some assumptions in it, but a big tide raises all boats.

.
It's a great time to be a photographer.
Hopefully, an APUG Member will reach that level, someday ...

Ron
.

Thomas Bertilsson · May 15, 2011

M.A.Longmore said:
.
It's a great time to be a photographer.
Hopefully, an APUG Member will reach that level, someday ...

Ron
.

As mentioned earlier, Ron, I'd love to sell one of my photos for half that. That's a 50% discount.

$3,890,500!!!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency