$3,890,500!!!

[eclarke]

Christie's Auction, a Cindy Sherman photograph sold for $3,890,500!! It was #10 of 10..amazing

 

[Pinholemaster]

Unbelievable. And she ain't dead yet.

 

[sandholm]

Its a C-print from 1981, dont know the material but I doubt it will stay stable for the next 100 years .... the price is just ridiculous and we could have the same /art/snapshot conversation here again

cheers

 

[Klainmeister]

Holy hell......

 

[brucemuir]

this is just a farce imo
(dons asbestos coveralls)

 

[removed account4]

Here is a link to the work on Christie's Auction. Not her best, but definitely not her worst.

thanks for the link!

and i agree !

 

[benjiboy]

Unbelievable. And she ain't dead yet.

That's true, but if her work sells for those sort of amounts the temptation of interested parties to remedy the situation might be too great to make them limited editions

 

[Vaughn]

While it would have been great for us photographers if the buyer had bought 3,890 prints from various artists for $1000 each instead, this is still amazing. It would be nice if the artist got 10% of these sales as a general rule.

 

[hoffy]

Oh my.....The funny thing is I get the photo...but nearly $4M.....whoooooaaa

 

[Eric Rose]

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

 

[eclarke]

A Warhol self portrait, silk screened, brought $38 million!!

 

[bblhed]

That's it, tonight when I get home I'm making the kid lay on the kitchen floor holding a scrap of want ads and taking a poorly framed photo of her, then I am going to do a limited printing of 1 copy.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That's a fairly distinguished list of literature citations for this one image--Jack Flam, Rosalind Krauss, Peter Schjeldahl, etc.--so empirically, this stands out as a particularly representative example of the work of Cindy Sherman, so that may have something to do with the price.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'll happily sell one of my photos for half that.

 

[Rick A]

I've probably spent that much on my own works.

 

[warden]

wow, the other nine owners must be ecstatic!

I guess photography is making progress in the art world after all.

 

[rphenning]

I think it's a gorgeous file on the site, must be even more so as a print.

 

[removed account4]

That's it, tonight when I get home I'm making the kid lay on the kitchen floor holding a scrap of want ads and taking a poorly framed photo of her, then I am going to do a limited printing of 1 copy.

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

i hope you post it here, i'd love to see it

 

[Jeff Kubach]

WOW!

Jeff

 

[eclarke]

I'm pretty sure the actual print has a commanding presence.....EC

 

[bobwysiwyg]

My taste must all be in my mouth. I don't get it. My thought is.. so? Or, some folks obviously have more money than they know what to do with.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[CGW]

this is just a farce imo
(dons asbestos coveralls)

Just sour grapes, methinks.

 

[holmburgers]

When it comes to discussing art, these kind of "oh I could do that" comments irritate me, along with the "artsy fartsy" allusions. Do you really think that is all that's involved?

I think it's a knee-jerk response, and there is always the accompanying aroma of jealously.

Benji, please explain why this "isn't even a good photograph".

 

[mjs]

Oh my.....The funny thing is I get the photo...

I don't. Could you explain it? I have absolutely no idea.

Mike