$3,890,500!!!

[ic-racer]

Looks like an early color image, dated 1981. I believe she started using color in 1980.

 

[benjiboy]

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

I'm retired and on a fixed income but I don't think my conscience would allow me to sell this image for even a quarter amount.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I'm retired and on a fixed income but I don't think my conscience would allow me to sell this image for even a quarter amount.

My conscience won't either, but my bank account says yes!

Jeff

 

[ic-racer]

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

Maybe I'm missing something but it does not look like Cindy Sherman was selling that print. From the provenance it looks like a speculator purchased it from Metro Pictures Gallery and now is cashing in.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Maybe I'm missing something but it does not look like Cindy Sherman was selling that print. From the provenance it looks like a speculator purchased it from Metro Pictures Gallery and now is cashing in.

That's exactly what happened, yes. You're not missing anything at all.

I just pointed out that I'd be happy to take half of the amount the Sherman print sold for regardless.

 

[removed account4]

if you sell through a gallery ... you would have to charge 2x what you actually
want to get because of the gallery commission ..
or you could to outside the whole gallery-commission-thing
and try to sell through your own connections, but chances are your own connections
aren't flush with money like collectors that are connected with galleries and auctions houses

"collecting" art is like collecting anything else ... if someone wants a certain-something
he/she will pay whatever they can ( or can't ) afford for it ...
we can see this same thing with soft focus off-beat and brass lenses ... it wasn't too long ago
they they didn't cost too much $$ to buy, but now, there are a alot of people who want to own them
so the market decides how much they are worth ...

i'm glad people are paying lots of money for photography,
it adds a sense of worth to the stuff we all make with a camera ...

 

[moki]

[rant]

Oh well... and I'm glad if I can sell a decent print for 50€. Honestly, this whole art collecting business is just pure madness. Ok, the picture is pretty nice and a fine big format too. It would be around 80€ at the flea market and 500-1000€ as a signed print at a local artist's gallery sale - assuming it was from a local artist that gets by on 500€ a month and personally thanks everybody for buying his prints... I can't really explain how angry this makes me without using too many f-words.

It's not that I can't have this kind of money (talking about the 4M $)... sure, I'd like that and could buy a few decades worth of film from one sale, but I don't really need or want it. What annoys me, is the injustice in the whole system. I know many local artists and most of them are poorer than church mice, selling barely enough to live or living on welfare... many of them produce works of art that match the stuff that's sold for millions of dollars at international auctions - Not only good pieces of craftsmanship but pieces of art with a real vision and meaning. With 4M$, you could pay a year of rent for hundreds of studios and flats for people who actually need the money. You could buy enough great prints to use as wallpaper for a whole appartement and still have some left... and now some richbag just pays that much for a single print that will fade in 50 years, just because he thinks he can make even more money from it in a few years. Don't tell me, he just likes the picture and is going to just hang it on his wall... that's a lie! It's all about the money and not about the art.
Being a great artist today seems to be about the ability to sell your "products", not about some kind of quality inherent to the artwork... even selling cars, fridges or whatever is more about the product than art. It does matter, whether you make a good car or if it breaks down at the first corner. With art, it doesn't really matter anymore, what it is, but it's about asking for a unrealistically high amount of money... If you have a good name you can sh*t into a can and sell it as art (even more expensive, once you're dead), but if I try that, I'm going to be put into the loony bin... it makes me sick, and I don't mean the thought of sh*t in a can...

[/rant]

Oh well, I guess it's just a free market after all... someone is mad enough to pay that much, so it's got to be ok
And it is nice, that a photograph (especially one made with analog means) can be sold for that much money. These prices show that photography is finally taken as seriously as painting or sculpture by art collectors. I only wish that 1000 photographs could have been sold for 1/1000 of the price. 4000$ for 1000 artists, not 4M$ for one artist who, I believe, already has more money in her bank account than most of us will make in a lifetime. Yes, I know that this amount doesn't go to the artist herself, but I guess, she's got more than anybody should need.

 

[Early Riser]

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

Ron
.

Actually it's a great time to be an amateur photographer, and a horrific time to be a professional one.

And how does art that only curators or a few collectors understand yet shower with praise hurt the photography and art world? Funding. The public finds it a waste of money to fund art and photography programs, museums and exhibitions when they find the work questionable, offensive or only capable of appealing to whom they consider elitist.

The public as a whole does not really value art. People may say they do when asked in a poll, but you see little in the way of support for the arts when public schools drop their art and music programs. Conversely if a high school were to drop it's football team there would be townsfolk with torches and pitchforks at the door. So in this climate imagine that you're a politician and you are asked to provide funding for expensive museums, the NEA, etc, who are choosing to show work that neither you or the public consider to be any better than your kids could shoot with a cell phone? Or worse still only work that some elitist MFA thinks is good?

If photography is to survive as an art, the work must reflect a real level of skill and talent on the part of the photographer. A level far beyond that of the common person with a camera. The art world should not be a democracy, it should be a meritocracy. The best work get's encouraged and those whose work lacks any merit should be incentivized to do better work. This may seem harsh to many, those who never went through the brutal critique process in college or especially in the professional photography world. But it's a system that betters photographers, at least those who understand that there's always room for improvement.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

[rant]

Oh well... and I'm glad if I can sell a decent print for 50€. Honestly, this whole art collecting business is just pure madness. Ok, the picture is pretty nice and a fine big format too. It would be around 80€ at the flea market and 500-1000€ as a signed print at a local artist's gallery sale - assuming it was from a local artist that gets by on 500€ a month and personally thanks everybody for buying his prints... I can't really explain how angry this makes me without using too many f-words.

It's not that I can't have this kind of money (talking about the 4M $)... sure, I'd like that and could buy a few decades worth of film from one sale, but I don't really need or want it. What annoys me, is the injustice in the whole system. I know many local artists and most of them are poorer than church mice, selling barely enough to live or living on welfare... many of them produce works of art that match the stuff that's sold for millions of dollars at international auctions - Not only good pieces of craftsmanship but pieces of art with a real vision and meaning. With 4M$, you could pay a year of rent for hundreds of studios and flats for people who actually need the money. You could buy enough great prints to use as wallpaper for a whole appartement and still have some left... and now some richbag just pays that much for a single print that will fade in 50 years, just because he thinks he can make even more money from it in a few years. Don't tell me, he just likes the picture and is going to just hang it on his wall... that's a lie! It's all about the money and not about the art.
Being a great artist today seems to be about the ability to sell your "products", not about some kind of quality inherent to the artwork... even selling cars, fridges or whatever is more about the product than art. It does matter, whether you make a good car or if it breaks down at the first corner. With art, it doesn't really matter anymore, what it is, but it's about asking for a unrealistically high amount of money... If you have a good name you can sh*t into a can and sell it as art (even more expensive, once you're dead), but if I try that, I'm going to be put into the loony bin... it makes me sick, and I don't mean the thought of sh*t in a can...

[/rant]

Oh well, I guess it's just a free market after all... someone is mad enough to pay that much, so it's got to be ok
And it is nice, that a photograph (especially one made with analog means) can be sold for that much money. These prices show that photography is finally taken as seriously as painting or sculpture by art collectors. I only wish that 1000 photographs could have been sold for 1/1000 of the price. 4000$ for 1000 artists, not 4M$ for one artist who, I believe, already has more money in her bank account than most of us will make in a lifetime. Yes, I know that this amount doesn't go to the artist herself, but I guess, she's got more than anybody should need.

You make your point very well. If you're a professional photographer, trying to make a living off your art, and there was not the propensity for a work of art to sell for a very large amount - would you be as interested in having that career?

 

[SuzanneR]

Actually it's a great time to be an amateur photographer, and a horrific time to be a professional one.

And how does art that only curators or a few collectors understand yet shower with praise hurt the photography and art world? Funding. The public finds it a waste of money to fund art and photography programs, museums and exhibitions when they find the work questionable, offensive or only capable of appealing to whom they consider elitist.

The public as a whole does not really value art. People may say they do when asked in a poll, but you see little in the way of support for the arts when public schools drop their art and music programs. Conversely if a high school were to drop it's football team there would be townsfolk with torches and pitchforks at the door. So in this climate imagine that you're a politician and you are asked to provide funding for expensive museums, the NEA, etc, who are choosing to show work that neither you or the public consider to be any better than your kids could shoot with a cell phone? Or worse still only work that some elitist MFA thinks is good?

If photography is to survive as an art, the work must reflect a real level of skill and talent on the part of the photographer. A level far beyond that of the common person with a camera. The art world should not be a democracy, it should be a meritocracy. The best work get's encouraged and those whose work lacks any merit should be incentivized to do better work. This may seem harsh to many, those who never went through the brutal critique process in college or especially in the professional photography world. But it's a system that betters photographers, at least those who understand that there's always room for improvement.

Clearly folks don't appreciate art because our art education in lacking in a lot of ways (an extraordinary frustration I share), but then anyone making serious art (like Cindy Sherman) has probably probably endured more than a few "brutal" critiques, but in your earlier posts you seem to dismiss Sherman's work because... what did you say? First, this:

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?


Ok... not meritorious because it has the longevity of milk? I saw one of these prints in '81 at Metro Pictures, they look to have held up rather longer than the milk I bought last week.

Then this dismissal...

Greg, you really think she gave it all that thought BEFORE she took the photo? That all sounds like post exposure rationalization. That same type of description could be used on a million images. You could look at some lifestyle type clothing catalogs and be able to use a similar descriptor. You could look at a copy of Playboy magazine and use the same explanation for it's nudes. The problem I have with the image, besides it looking like it was done by a first year photo student, is that it requires all that verbiage to have a sense of purpose, that the image itself doesn't stand on it's own any more than any portrait of a woman or an advertisement.

Point is taken to an extent... I remember this Cindy Sherman quite clearly from seeing it in person, but I don't remember any catalog pictures from that time. Hmmm... maybe this one is better than those? Right... presented the way it was, large C-print, in the context of a striking body of work that was pretty carefully considered. I can see why one might confuse it from some early 80's catalog work.

And then your final comment that struck me as simply misogynistic sour grapes...


Sherman was all about politics. You had a vast number of women MFAs getting jobs as curators, art writers, gallery directors or owners, and Sherman's work was one they could project their own views on. To me her work is narcissistic, which also reflects a seeming fascination that women have with images of themselves and other women. But that doesn't make the images good.


There are a lot of things about the art market I don't like, but Cindy Sherman having her work so highly valued is not one of them.

 

[Early Riser]

Clearly folks don't appreciate art because our art education in lacking in a lot of ways (an extraordinary frustration I share), but then anyone making serious art (like Cindy Sherman) has probably probably endured more than a few "brutal" critiques, but in your earlier posts you seem to dismiss Sherman's work because... what did you say? First, this:

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?


Ok... not meritorious because it has the longevity of milk? I saw one of these prints in '81 at Metro Pictures, they look to have held up rather longer than the milk I bought last week.

Then this dismissal...

Greg, you really think she gave it all that thought BEFORE she took the photo? That all sounds like post exposure rationalization. That same type of description could be used on a million images. You could look at some lifestyle type clothing catalogs and be able to use a similar descriptor. You could look at a copy of Playboy magazine and use the same explanation for it's nudes. The problem I have with the image, besides it looking like it was done by a first year photo student, is that it requires all that verbiage to have a sense of purpose, that the image itself doesn't stand on it's own any more than any portrait of a woman or an advertisement.

Point is taken to an extent... I remember this Cindy Sherman quite clearly from seeing it in person, but I don't remember any catalog pictures from that time. Hmmm... maybe this one is better than those? Right... presented the way it was, large C-print, in the context of a striking body of work that was pretty carefully considered. I can see why one might confuse it from some early 80's catalog work.

And then your final comment that struck me as simply misogynistic sour grapes...


Sherman was all about politics. You had a vast number of women MFAs getting jobs as curators, art writers, gallery directors or owners, and Sherman's work was one they could project their own views on. To me her work is narcissistic, which also reflects a seeming fascination that women have with images of themselves and other women. But that doesn't make the images good.




There are a lot of things about the art market I don't like, but Cindy Sherman having her work so highly valued is not one of them.

Suzanne, a few points, first the longevity of C-Prints, here is a quote from a paper put out by Wilhelm research;

"The Museum of Modern Art New York Statement to Photographers Who Work in Color.--- It is now well known that with a few exceptions color print materials show a noticeable fading or color shift within as little as ten to twenty years when stored under normal room temperature and humidity conditions, even in the dark. Most such works in the Museum’s Collection, prints up to 20” x 24”, are now stored at about 30°F [–1.1°C] and 35% relative humidity. These conditions will substantially increase the life of the prints. However, these same photographs also fade or change color when, on exhibition, they are exposed to light."

So Sherman's print will last a bit longer if you never display it And store it below freezing in a dark and dry room. So you saw a print of it in 1981 have you seen one in person since? Have you ever seen a copy kept frozen and in the dark side by side with one that has been displayed? I doubt it. This problem was serious enough for MOMA to take serious steps to protect the images, freezing and darkness. But I guess the person who just paid $3.8 million for it won't mind building a walk in freezer to view the print, of course they'll need to view it in the dark lest it fade.

And because I don't like her work, and because I noted that she benefitted from the peak of the feminist movement and that it was popular with female curators then I'm a misogynist? Or is it because I said her work, a huge series of self portraits, was narcissistic? I'm sorry but in my view anyone who makes themselves the sole subject of their photography for 30 years, who has that fascination with their own image, is narcissistic. Look up the meaning. I also think that Richard Prince is a plagiarist, so I guess that means I must hate men too?

I think that currently there are many female photographers VASTLY superior to Sherman, on every level. And those photographers will never get the attention or success they deserve when the art world is hyping crap from 30 years ago because the artist has a name. And what has she done in 30 years? The same photograph, over and over again.

 

[removed account4]

And what has she done in 30 years? The same photograph, over and over again.

brian

i don't think she has done the same photograph for 30 years any more than
you have made the same landscape photograph over and over again ...

john

 

[M.A.Longmore]

.
A photographer, is just a photographer.
I never thought there was a need to specify gender.
Being as there are so many different categories of photography,
there are many niches to allow for the proper label to be attached.
I've been waiting patiently to see when a purely digital image
will be sold for Million$, or has that already happened ?

Ron
.

 

[Early Riser]

brian

i don't think she has done the same photograph for 30 years any more than
you have made the same landscape photograph over and over again ...

john

John, almost ALL of her work is self portrait. The only thing that changes in nearly all of them is the clothing and makeup. As for that being similar to my choosing, after 25 years of shooting still life, portrait, fashion, beauty, food, beverages and industrial locations to spend the next 10 years shooting landscape is very different. The accurate comparison is if I spent the last 30 years shooting exactly the same location, the same subject over and over again. Setting up a camera in my back yard and just shooting the same tree for 30 years. That is what Sherman does.

How is it that someone with all the possible subject matter available to them, and the financial resources to shoot whatever she wants, just does the same image again and again and again? Is the only thing in life that interests her is her own appearance? Or does she lack any real creativity and has found a formula that has made her wealthy and famous? And that is the model for artists to follow?

 

[hoffy]

John, almost ALL of her work is self portrait. The only thing that changes in nearly all of them is the clothing and makeup. As for that being similar to my choosing, after 25 years of shooting still life, portrait, fashion, beauty, food, beverages and industrial locations to spend the next 10 years shooting landscape is very different. The accurate comparison is if I spent the last 30 years shooting exactly the same location, the same subject over and over again. Setting up a camera in my back yard and just shooting the same tree for 30 years. That is what Sherman does.

How is it that someone with all the possible subject matter available to them, and the financial resources to shoot whatever she wants, just does the same image again and again and again? Is the only thing in life that interests her is her own appearance? Or does she lack any real creativity and has found a formula that has made her wealthy and famous? And that is the model for artists to follow?

It's funny, but if someone had setup a tripod in their backyard and photographed the same tree at the same time every day for 30 years, I would find that art. You are living with the tree. You are watching it grow, watching it evolve (especially if the tree was small to start with). You are viewing the tree when it's sunny, when it's rainy....yes, that would work for me.

 

[Early Riser]

It's funny, but if someone had setup a tripod in their backyard and photographed the same tree at the same time every day for 30 years, I would find that art. You are living with the tree. You are watching it grow, watching it evolve (especially if the tree was small to start with). You are viewing the tree when it's sunny, when it's rainy....yes, that would work for me.

You're assuming that those tree photos were interesting, what if they weren't? What if they were lifeless and boring? And what would it say about that photographer that the ONLY photos they produced over 30 years as a full time photographer were those tree pictures? Would it say they were a one trick pony, that they were uncreative, that they were lazy, that they never grew as an artist? Because that's what doing the same shot for 30 years says to me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The most interesting aspect of this thread is how much controversy one photograph has stirred. With every post we go deeper and deeper into both why it was sold so expensively, but also why the photograph might be important or not. Regarding whether it's important or not, I think there is good reason to assume that it is, based on the amount of discussion it has generated.

 

[Tony Egan]

Thoroughly entertaining. Righteous indignation vs artistic pretension going the full 12 rounds.

I really like the photograph and would love to have it hanging on one of my walls. Sherman's attraction to me is the enigmatic quality of the pose and facial expression. Discomforting and impossible to pin down. Part naive, part licentious, self possessed but afraid at the same time. And it's a red, dressed in red, lying on red. (actually '70s burnt orange I suppose) Is this really an Aunt Mabel accident? Come on!
Duane Michals also said Warhol was boring (but he's selling for $30m). He also says George W. Bush is Ass-holier than thou and Diane Arbus was the real deal. Now isn't there something in there that we can all agree on?

 

[Early Riser]

The most interesting aspect of this thread is how much controversy one photograph has stirred. With every post we go deeper and deeper into both why it was sold so expensively, but also why the photograph might be important or not. Regarding whether it's important or not, I think there is good reason to assume that it is, based on the amount of discussion it has generated.

Thomas I think a photograph of a turd selling for $3.8 million would also draw great attention, that still doesn't mean that it's anything more than a turd. Does anyone here really think that Sherman's work is better than Arbus, Bernhard, Cunningham, Bourke-White, etc? And all of these women produced their excellent work at a time when women as photographers faced tremendous opposition, they did not benefit from the wave of feminism that carried Sherman, and yet each of them were vastly superior photographers with often very diverse and creative photographs.

What I have seen in photography over the last 30 years is it change from an appreciation of work that has readily visible meaning, work that did not rely on explanation to work, to work that most often could not stand on it's own. It has become trendy and more like fashion than something enduring. Maybe that's why print longevity has become of lesser importance. C-prints were never considered archival. While something like a fuji crystal is supposed to last for 100 years (we'll never know) the fact that one of the most popular forms of exhibiting these prints is front mounted to plexiglas, which is far from archival due to de-laminating of the plexi from the print, maybe this all reflects the notion that photography is fashion and does not need prints to endure for the long term.

I admit my POV is very biased. I come from the professional world of photography although like all here I started as an amateur, and I expect a certain level of mastery in work that is given the highest of status. The vast majority of photographers that I know and have known in my life are also professionals, from the top echelon of the profession. We would often talk about the work that the art world was embracing, and would scratch our heads with amazement at how such often unacceptable work was worshipped. But we'd also look at a Penn or Bernhard and realize just how great a photographer could be. And we'd use them as our role models. And when I look at a Sherman, I can't help but think the art world has embraced bull shit, that's it's become more about hype than content.

 

[removed account4]

John, almost ALL of her work is self portrait. The only thing that changes in nearly all of them is the clothing and makeup. As for that being similar to my choosing, after 25 years of shooting still life, portrait, fashion, beauty, food, beverages and industrial locations to spend the next 10 years shooting landscape is very different. The accurate comparison is if I spent the last 30 years shooting exactly the same location, the same subject over and over again. Setting up a camera in my back yard and just shooting the same tree for 30 years. That is what Sherman does.

How is it that someone with all the possible subject matter available to them, and the financial resources to shoot whatever she wants, just does the same image again and again and again? Is the only thing in life that interests her is her own appearance? Or does she lack any real creativity and has found a formula that has made her wealthy and famous? And that is the model for artists to follow?

brian

i kind of see what you are saying, but you are assuming that no thought at all
has ever gone into any of her work .... and i doubt that is true.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

And when I look at a Sherman... <snip> ...it's become more about hype than content.

Sorry for the hard editing.

If you look beyond your own frame of reference, is it possible that other art enthusiasts might find Sherman's work important? Is it possible that she is, in fact, iconic in the eyes of others?

I can understand why you don't like her work. It doesn't excite me either. But different strokes for different folks. And I'm commenting solely on the viewpoint of appreciating her work, not the four million bucks.

I also agree with your earlier comment that art is not appreciated enough in school these days. It's an integral part of understanding the history of our people, and maybe has a big part of forming the future as well.

But maybe you should cut 'everybody else' some slack regarding appreciating her work. That is a highly personal assessment that doesn't necessarily agree with everyone else's. I have discussed this picture with many people, photographers and others, and find that a lot of people appreciate it as an important piece of its time. I find it important to respect their opinion.

 

[vpwphoto]

It's just me... but I have always found Sherman's work too personal (to her). I find her's and other self exploratory work like hers unappealing for me to own. Personally I enjoy pictorial, editorial, and documentary work. I know one can argue her work as being documentary.

I can appreciate this sort of work in a gallery, but not anything I would wish to own and display in my home.
Just my .2¢.

Hat's off to Cindy for all the hard work and self promotion over the years, it has paid off.

 

[vpwphoto]

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?.

Actually yes. I have been paid to document collections of a couple people.
One had a small $60,000 plain house here in Indiana and she had a $300,000 painting on one wall. The entire collection must have been worth some $4,000,000!
Her house and living style was plain otherwise.

I have a personal friend that drives nothing but a 25 year old Ford moving van, that spends $10,000 or more on singular paintings every year. Art is is his life, his building is worth perhaps $120,000 but the paintings and drawings in his tiny living room total some $75,000... the hallway must have another $80,000 worth in it.

 

[Early Riser]

Sorry for the hard editing.

If you look beyond your own frame of reference, is it possible that other art enthusiasts might find Sherman's work important? Is it possible that she is, in fact, iconic in the eyes of others?

I can understand why you don't like her work. It doesn't excite me either. But different strokes for different folks. And I'm commenting solely on the viewpoint of appreciating her work, not the four million bucks.

I also agree with your earlier comment that art is not appreciated enough in school these days. It's an integral part of understanding the history of our people, and maybe has a big part of forming the future as well.

But maybe you should cut 'everybody else' some slack regarding appreciating her work. That is a highly personal assessment that doesn't necessarily agree with everyone else's. I have discussed this picture with many people, photographers and others, and find that a lot of people appreciate it as an important piece of its time. I find it important to respect their opinion.

Thomas my own frame of reference is vastly more extensive than most photographers so it's not like it's a limiting factor for me. And understand this perspective, I spent 25 years producing work that was intended to be viewed by millions of people, that I did this on a daily basis, and as a result I had to have an understanding of how people view a photograph and how or what that photograph needs to communicate.

Do I understand that others may enjoy her work? Of course. People relate to work for a variety of reasons, I relate to Penn and Bernhard because they turn simple things into something special. They often see something that is not clearly visible and make you feel something strongly, and they do so with ONLY the photograph itself, no lengthy explanations.

I think for some photographers with limited skills but high personal hopes for their success, what they like about her work is that it's not beyond their own skill level and that gives them hope that someday they too can achieve this level of fame and fortune. For them it's an inspiration. I think for other photographers it's easier to jump on the band wagon of work that has gotten official approval rather than be the one who says that the Emperor has no clothes. I think for some people with limited knowledge or a smaller frame of reference they are more easily impressed with a photograph that a professional would find lacking. I've seen people love an image because they like that shade of red, or they used to own a hat like that, or they just like any picture of NY or San Francisco because they love that place. There are many reasons why an image appeals to someone. And some of them are very shallow at best. And without all the hype and lengthy explanations Sherman's work has very little on the paper.

And why am I not just "cutting some slack"? Because I have devoted my entire life to photography, 7 days a week for 35 years, and I hate seeing the standards and quality go down. I want to see work that blows me away, that inspires me to work harder, I hate seeing mediocrity being encouraged for political or fashion or commercial reasons. The same way a history teacher would react to the recent survey that reported that 77% of Oklahoma high school students could not name the first US President, that is how I view the trend in photography and why I feel strongly about what is going on. But one can argue that it's just not necessary for someone to know the name of the first US president, that ignorance of that fact wouldn't necessarily impede one from having a reasonable quality of life, and that those who feel that such knowledge is valueless have a POV just as valid as those who feel the opposite. But really are all opinions of equal value?

And also understand that what drives the art world is selling to collectors. And for collectors the attraction is not always about the image, it's content or quality, for many it's about the status of owning something expensive, rare and famous.

 

[patrickjames]

I think Brian has some really valid points, especially that Sherman keeps taking what is essentially the same photograph. I have grown to appreciate somewhat the early Untitled Film Stills, although I believe I read at one point that her professor or someone close to her was doing the same thing. Why then did she become famous if it wasn't really original? I think Brian gave a reasonable explanation for that. There are a few female photographers that I could lump in the same category.

I would also love to see a meritocracy in the arts. It will never happen though, just like a meritocracy in life will never happen. You either have to know someone or be rich. The art world is much the same way. Many artists are independently wealthy before they become artists. Not many people talk about it though because no one wants to admit that hard work doesn't pay off in the art world. If you don't have the resources to produce the work, it won't get produced. Go ahead and name a famous photographer and there is a very good chance they had outside support unrelated to photography.

I sense a bit of frustration in Brian's responses, which is understandable. I have roughly the same perspective. It is hard to make a dent when your images whisper instead of scream, when they are beautiful instead of bizarre. Especially these days when the "let's go find the freak and photograph him and blow it up life size so we can marvel at his freakiness" photography is so emphasized. I have one project left in me that I have been working on for the last two years. If that doesn't fly, I am giving it up. Life is too short.

I did say earlier in the thread that I don't really care about these huge sales. As I was thinking about it, I don't necessarily see these prints selling as investment devices. It would be much easier to buy multiple prints that will appreciate in value. I'd say it is more of a status symbol so they can say "I own the most expensive..." Brian's point about the archivability is a real one. Take a look at some of Shore's early prints. Awful. He is not the only artist that is having a problem with this.

Earlier today, I was reading about how JP Morgan was fixing the silver market and it made me realize- how hard would it be to fix an auction price? It only takes two people agreeing to do it. Say two people had extensive collections of a certain artist. One of his pieces came up for auction. The two of them could overbid the piece, which also would add value to the rest of their collections, then sell their pieces at the inflated prices on the private market. How much are the rest of Sherman's works now worth? They took a big jump. I am not saying that happened here, but you get the point. The potential for abuse is pretty enormous if you think about it.