$3,890,500!!!

polyglot · May 17, 2011

Well there's a lot of bitterness, jealousy and "I coulda been a contender" in this thread!

I don't get the photo except on an intellectual level of what it symbolises; it doesn't resonate with me and I don't find it beautiful. But so what? Someone (well, probably two people since it was an auction) values it as an investment if not art and it's their right to pay $4e6 for it. While you can reasonably argue that 3890 images at $1000 each is a much better (for the art world) use of the cash, the collector probably feels they'll get better ROI on this one iconic purchase, even if it's in prestige and not financial/resale value.

What amuses me are those that feel the need to either denigrate the artist and/or claim that they could have (or currently do) produce "better" art. Are you really that insecure?

Remember (with apologies to those differently-abled): arguing/boasting on the internet is like the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

patrickjames · May 17, 2011

Man, you guys have been going at it! The only really universal concrete way to value art is monetarily. The only fact that we have is that the print sold for $3.8 mil. That fact is separate from any opinion, it is just a fact. If history has told us anything it is that next year a different photograph will sell for more money, in fact the way things have been going lately, there will be many that will sell for more than this.

I must say that I got hammered a few years ago in a thread like this about a photograph that sold for a million (I thought it was ludicrous). It ain't a lot of fun! People can take real mean pot shots I tell ya, even if you are not directing your comments at them. People sure love to argue! I learned my lesson and now reserve my opinions for my friends and other people that can handle them. One of my other rules of thumb for the internet is to never talk about what I do or have done. Keep it as non specific as possible.

kwall · May 17, 2011

moki said:
[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]

Don't hold back, moki. Tell us how you really feel!

coigach · May 17, 2011

polyglot said:
Remember (with apologies to those differently-abled): arguing/boasting on the internet is like the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still a retard.

Although I agree with the points you made elsewhere in your post, that's a pretty offensive turn of phrase .

I'm a social worker who works with disabled people so that probably means I have a shorter fuse with stuff like this, but please, be more thoughtful...

polyglot · May 17, 2011

coigach said:
Although I agree with the points you made elsewhere in your post, that's a pretty offensive turn of phrase .

I'm a social worker who works with disabled people so that probably means I have a shorter fuse with stuff like this, but please, be more thoughtful...

I'll assume you realise from the parentheses that my aim was not to offend anyone except those who argue their artistic prowess on the internet; apologies if you were.

(However, grumble, and here's me arguing on the internet... "retard" is/was a medical term referring to delayed development. It has a specific technical meaning that does not imply a value judgement except where it's used as a direct insult, typically by schoolchildren, which I hope you realise I wasn't really doing here. Pinker's concept of the euphemism-dysphemism treadmill is particularly interesting).

coigach · May 17, 2011

polyglot said:
I'll assume you realise from the parentheses that my aim was not to offend anyone except those who argue their artistic prowess on the internet; apologies if you were.

(However, grumble, and here's me arguing on the internet... "retard" is/was a medical term referring to delayed development. It has a specific technical meaning that does not imply a value judgement except where it's used as a direct insult, typically by schoolchildren, which I hope you realise I wasn't really doing here. Pinker's concept of the euphemism-dysphemism treadmill is particularly interesting).

Cheers for reply.

The word 'retard' means different things in different places. In the UK, no professional, whether medical (and I meet medics daily through work) or in social work would dream of using the word. It's actually considered pretty offensive. Delayed development is described in various different ways, depending on the particular reasons for delay, but never as 'retard or 'retarded'.

Anyway, I've dragged everyone off-topic a bit, sorry. Back to Cindy Sherman...!

SuzanneR · May 17, 2011

Early Riser said:
Suzanne you might be right, I most likely will not get much notoriety, unless of course I start shooting controversial things, or shoot things that curators are into, and I'm fine with that.

Fortunately a fair number of people happen to like, even value my work, and that's enough for me. I'm choosing to shoot what I want to and I could care less what people think of it. I travel anywhere in the world I want, for as long as I want, shooting whatever I want. I'll just have to console myself with the fact that I was able to do what I loved as my job for my entire life, was appreciated for it, was honored and respected for it by my peers , and was very well paid for it. So don't be sad for me Suzanne, I'll be fine.

I have no doubt you'll be fine, but my point about it goes to credibility. You've spent a lot of time boasting about your background in this thread, and boasting about your current work in the quote above, and you seem to think your opinion is far more valid than mine or any others expressed here.

Sherman makes interesting work, I don't see exploring feminist ideas as being particularly "controversial", but they are thoughtful, far more thoughtful than a lot of contemporary photography, and whether or not "some amateur" or typical "APUG user" could make them from a technical point of view is irrelevant for the simple reason that they did not make them.

And to dismiss her work, and the opinions of others because they haven't had the same trajectory in the field of photography as YOU, or have had YOUR experiences have is a rather arrogant way to really think about the photographic practice of others. The world of photography does not revolve around one person, place, or idea. (Thank goodness.)

I find your views of Sherman's work rather narrow minded, and we'll have to agree to disagree about it.

removed account4 · May 17, 2011

Early Riser said:
John, like I should value the photographic opinion of someone who can't shoot for shit? Are you kidding me? Is that how you learn? Find someone really bad at something and then take their advice on it?

did you bother to read the info on the photos he posted or see where they were?
he posted them in the critique gallery to get valid responses/critique on how to improve them.
the photographs were from a handmade camera on finicky direct positive paper. if you read what he wrote, you would have known this and if you read his sig-line and went to his website you would have seen
he certainly can shoot well ...

but to be honest whether someone can photograph or make photographs you or like
doesn't have anything to do with whether or not he has a valid opinion about liking or
disliking photographs by cindy sherman or anyone else.

if i had told customers at a coffee shop ( where i worked ) that their opinions
about coffee were worthless, " you don't like this coffee that tastes like dirt, you're an idiot" ... i would have been fired ....

and yes, that is how i learn ... by listening to what others have to say, even
if they aren't an experts in the field &C ....
non-experts don't seem to entrenched in their ways and sometimes
can offer a refreshing point of view ...

Thomas Bertilsson · May 17, 2011

I'm putting this thread on ignore. It was a good run, but it's getting ridiculous. Good luck to you all.

My final contribution: Nobody decides for me what I like.

removed account4 · May 17, 2011

M.A.Longmore · May 17, 2011

jnanian said:
+2

.
I see a trend developing here.

Ron
.

bill schwab · May 17, 2011

Oh... Suzanne... you are my hero.

Michael W · May 17, 2011

The important question that hasn't been asked until now - did Cindy expose the original using Kodachrome?

jd callow · May 17, 2011

SuzanneR said:
I think Ruth Bernhard's work has a distinct place in the history of the medium, and I don't think Cindy Sherman's work has done anything to diminish Bernhard's place in that history. That said, I am sure there are a lot of women photographers in the history of the medium who have been largely ignored, but certainly not because of Cindy Sherman's work. In my view, both Sherman and Bernhard are significant in the history of the medium of photography.

Your work, Brian, on the other hand, is not.

all excellent points.

Sethasaurus · May 17, 2011

Whew.
Why didn't someone create a poll to see how many people like/dislike this picture?

Retarded people are smart (I don't see any posting in this thread, anyway
It's the non-retarded people who refuse to use their brains that are the real stupid people in this world.

Oh, and btw, shit in a can has already been done. I checked..

Saganich · May 17, 2011

benjiboy said:
I wish somebody would explain what features of this image make it "Art", when it isn't even a good photograph, because my education in these matters is obviously sadly lacking because to me it's like the story of The Emperors New Clothes, and everyone has been taken in by it.

Szarkowsky writes on pg 276 of Photography until now, "two of the perceived shortcomings of photography as a modern art had been its excessive factuality and its insufficient self-absorption. These two objections were meet with one stroke by the fictionalized self-portrait, which has proven one of the most rewarding single subject-genres for photographers working within the gallery system." He features a Sherman #123 from 1983, Wegman Red/Grey, Samaras'83 as examples. He states pretty clearly that this is where photography had ended-up in 1989.

I attended a lecture in Dumbo this weekend that featured iPhone photojournalists. The photoworld has not settled down but I think the fictionalized self-portrait is a major boundary and perhaps the last of the era of conventional photography.

Sethasaurus · May 18, 2011

Chris,
I woke up this morning, read your post and realised how much I have to learn. I'm not particularly a lazy thinker but I have to admit that I judge what I'm seeing based on my knowledge and experience to this point and sometimes I don't put in the effort if the subject doesn't strike me right away.
One problem I have, having a lot of interests, is the amount of time I spend on any particular one is restricted by the time I spend on the others.
Anyway, you've sparked my interest and now I'm thinking - "can I go out now and see if I can discover or break some new boundaries?".
I should do some more reading too. Man, how can I get more hours in the day?

vpwphoto · May 18, 2011

Sethasaurus said:
"can I go out now and see if I can discover or break some new boundaries?".
I should do some more reading too. Man, how can I get more hours in the day?

I have been feeling the same way since discovering APUG and turning 45.
I was in Arches Natl. Park Utah a couple weeks back, hiking with a Hasselblad, I left the Blad in the car on one hike as I decided I couldn't create anything "new" I felt as if I was contributing to the visual noise in this world.

I cary a camera most of the week, and find photos... but then say... who will care and do I need the photo for my collection?

Saganich · May 18, 2011

I recognized Szarkowsky as one of the most articulate writers about the photograph's place in the art world. Not too long ago collected the few books he wrote and hey are quite illuminating. Unfortunately he isn't around to help clarify the current situation. I'm sure there is something beyond the fictionalized self-portrait for photography...I just can't see the logical next step.

moki · May 18, 2011

Sethasaurus said:
Whew.
Why didn't someone create a poll to see how many people like/dislike this picture?

Retarded people are smart (I don't see any posting in this thread, anyway
It's the non-retarded people who refuse to use their brains that are the real stupid people in this world.

Oh, and btw, shit in a can has already been done. I checked..

Oh, well, if that's art, I want to see the exact definition, please... But thanks for the visualisation of my words

I find that thinking of "Everything has been done before, so I won't even try" somewhat disturbing... ok, I am a lot younger and maybe a lot less wise, but if everybody thought like that, nothing new would've happened in the last few thousand years. Since the existence of the Internet, I know that there is a lot of stuff. I know that almost everything has been pictured by photographic means. Nontheless, I never leave the house without a loaded camera and find something worth capturing almost every day. There may be other fotos of the very same thing out there, but there are none from my exact point of view and most importantly, none taken by me.
I may be adding to the visual noise (which can indeed be overwhelming sometimes), but if only one honest person says "I like that photo", it's good enough for me, because I brought a little happiness into a life. Sometimes, that person can also be myself

To come a little closer to the original topic: I don't think, any of my photos will ever sell for millions of dollars (unless the next hyper-inflation comes sooner than expected...) In fact, I think, very few will be sold at all and these are probably not the ones I like... and all that doesn't stop me at all. I'm doing it, because it's fun and some of the results aren't too bad. I'd even do it if there wasn't that slight one in a trillion chance of becoming like Cindy Sherman and selling a picture for a ridiculous amount of money. If money was any reason, I'd rather give everything to the lottery - the chances to "win" would be a lot better.
I guess, I'm either too young to know better or completely mad... money does not matter as much as some people think. When I get enough for food, shelter and a few rolls of film, I won't complain. I'd rather stay right were I am than be part of that mad world of "collecting art", or as I describe it "stock market, but even harder to understand"

removed account4 · May 18, 2011

i lied and am back ...

moki

who cares if everything has been done before, you might do it a little different and better.

we always stand on their shoulders ...

Steve Smith · May 19, 2011

jnanian said:
who cares if everything has been done before, you might do it a little different and better.

Even if you do it the same, it's you doing it rather than someone else. Nothing wrong with that.

Steve.

blockend · May 19, 2011

In case it hasn't already been mentioned, the value of a piece of art is directly attributable to the currency of the artist in the art market, and how much wealthy individuals want to convert their assets into hard objects. It has next to nothing to do with the work and whether it's 'good' or not.
Garry Winogrand made a similar point in an interview when asked why people bought his photography, investment and personal aspiration.

$3,890,500!!!

polyglot

patrickjames

kwall

coigach

polyglot

coigach

SuzanneR

Moderator

removed account4

Thomas Bertilsson

removed account4

M.A.Longmore

bill schwab

Advertiser

Michael W

jd callow

Moderator

Sethasaurus

Saganich

Sethasaurus

vpwphoto

Saganich

moki

removed account4

Steve Smith

blockend

$3,890,500!!!

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency