Most expensive photo ever

bullpost

This one just sold at auction for over 3 million dollars:

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/05/cindy-sherman-print-sells-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp

samhail

wow ? as in $3.9M ???

Zillah

That very article mentions not one but two photos that sold for over ten times that. I'm confused.

EDIT: Ah...I think the Warhol one is a painting?

spinandscribble

the others are paintings/sculptures

magicbastarder

cindy sherman always left me cold.

Ghost Train

Bit about the photo

The Centerfold or Horizontals series began when the publication ArtForum commisioned Cindy Sherman to create a portfolio of images for display in the magazine. Inspired by the magazines horizontal format and the fact that the publication wanted Sherman to make 2 page spreads, she decided to create pictures that would mimick centerfolds from pornographic magazines. In the series, Sherman again is the subject in the images and portrays diffrent women in each photo. In Untitled #96 (shown above), Sherman portrays what seems to be a young teenager. This image portrays the character as being innocent yet seductive because at closer inspection, you will notice that her finger points to a small "singles" ad in the newspaper. This is to show how the character wants to leave her young single life and is ready to find her man, showing how she's progressed from a young teenager to a woman. Criticts panned the series, claiming that Sherman was reaffirming sexist stereotypes. Eventually, ArtForum rejected the series and the images were never published in the magazine.

the_monkey

Absolute crap - unbelievable how that **** can sell for 3.9 pence would amaze me.

sineadw

the_monkey wrote: »

Absolute crap - unbelievable how that **** can sell for 3.9 pence would amaze me.

Matter of opinion. I wouldn't be paying almost 4 million, but Cindy Sherman is friggin awesome.

Freddie59

My God. That is an absolutely brutal photograph. No two ways about it. WTF??

CabanSail

Luvvies with Money!

To each their own I guess. At those prices it's gone well beyond being about the image and it's become a rare commodity to trade. The price paid then defines the art work.

Whenever I hear of mediocre works attracting money and attention as people try to outbid each other in terms of money and praise for the work I'm reminded of the tale of The Emperor's New Clothes.

I would like to point out that this particular emperor is not wearing any clothes.

sineadw

It's *not* really about the image though. Sherman is a really important photographer. She has a whole body of really important work. This was an investment, pure and simple. It'll probably fetch 5 times that amount when she dies.

And for the record, her images shouldn't be taken out of context like this. They're not meant to wow your socks off, which is what apparently passes for good photography these days.

sineadw

sineadw wrote: »

And for the record, her images shouldn't be taken out of context like this. They're not meant to wow your socks off, which is what apparently passes for good photography these days.

Wow, how ignorant of me to expect good photography to look, well, good. This is just a picture of a kid lying on a floor with a piece of paper in his hand. Anyone could have taken it with a 5 euro disposable camera. It's not as if the composition of the shot is something to behold either.

sineadw

Actually, that's cindy sherman. It's what she does. She takes images of herself, dressed as stereotypes and female conventions. Which is why her work needs a bit of context. The point is to make you think. Not particularly for it to 'look good'.

MidnightQueen

In all fairness thats not the best picture! I could take one like it with my brother in it tomorrow and would it sell for the same amount??? I doubt it!

CabanSail

KittyKat wrote: »

In all fairness thats not the best picture! I could take one like it with my brother in it tomorrow and would it sell for the same amount??? I doubt it!

Yours would be a copy. Like other artworks, the copies may be visually much the same but it's the original which gets the money.

charybdis

As a matter of interest: which photograph do the people posting in this thread think should be the most expensive? Specifically.

I'm not saying it has to be as expensive as this one, but surely if you think that a monetary value can be assigned to photographs, there has to be a most expensive one.

Reminds me of a story I read about a man in Germany who, to highlight the ridiculousness of some aspects of modern art, drilled a hole in a wall and declared it a work of art. It was later valued at 15,000 euro.

Tigger

charybdis wrote: »

As a matter of interest: which photograph do the people posting in this thread think should be the most expensive? .

the first one

Fajitas!

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow, how ignorant of me to expect good photography to look, well, good. This is just a picture of a kid lying on a floor with a piece of paper in his hand. Anyone could have taken it with a 5 euro disposable camera. It's not as if the composition of the shot is something to behold either.

KittyKat wrote: »

In all fairness thats not the best picture! I could take one like it with my brother in it tomorrow and would it sell for the same amount??? I doubt it!

Lol.. 'Composition to behold'.

There's more to photographs "looking good". Photographs can be conceptually strong, they can have relevance that the 'Flickr audience' won't understand, they might not even be HDR... And yes! They might even be taken on a camera worth five quid. But does that make them any less of an image?

James, I'd say yes, your post does come across quite ignorant, you're willing to ignore anything other than the fact you don't like the photograph at first glance. Read back over Ghost Trains quote and you'll find that Cindy Sherman was quite successful in what she set out to do.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would like to point out that this particular emperor is not wearing any clothes.

She is, actually.

MidnightQueen

CabanSail wrote: »

Yours would be a copy. Like other artworks, the copies may be visually much the same but it's the original which gets the money.

Thats true, i was just saying if that was me that took that picture i wouldnt make as much money.

Fajitas! wrote: »

Lol.. 'Composition to behold'.

There's more to photographs "looking good". Photographs can be conceptually strong, they can have relevance that the 'Flickr audience' won't understand, they might not even be HDR... And yes! They might even be taken on a camera worth five quid. But does that make them any less of an image?

Good point! I never thought of photography that way.

pikaia

Its the idea that sells. I don't know if anyone remembers the huge rabbits that were on display on O'Connell street a few years ago. 1 of them sold for 2.5 million. If I told you who bought one you would be irate.

Zaph

CabanSail wrote: »

Yours would be a copy. Like other artworks, the copies may be visually much the same but it's the original which gets the money.

At what point does a photo cease being a snap someone's taken and is transformed into "art" that can sell for stupid money? As a self-confessed philistine what I see there is someone being suckered for $4m just because they've been told that this is art, when in fact it looks like it's something that anyone with a camera could replicate for themselves easily enough.

sineadw

Yep, anyone with a camera could replicate it. I could make a fairly good stab at a picasso and all. Wouldn't be any good though, would it?

If you're looking at this from a technical perspective, you're *entirely* missing the point. As fajitas said, it's about concept. Sherman isn't producing images for them to look good. She's making a statement, about image and preconceptions, and culture.

Fajitas!

Zaph wrote: »

At what point does a photo cease being a snap someone's taken and is transformed into "art" that can sell for stupid money? As a self-confessed philistine what I see there is someone being suckered for $4m just because they've been told that this is art, when in fact it looks like it's something that anyone with a camera could replicate for themselves easily enough.

Anyone could paint the Mona Lisa with a Paint-By-Numbers set, but only one person did, if you get me


The forethought and ideas behind an image make it more than a snap, the photographer was shooting this series of portraits for a long time (there's a total of 69 of them), each one thought out, and photographed exactly how she wanted to portray herself.

Zaph

No, I'm not looking at it from a technical point of view at all, I know little or nothing about photography. I was merely commenting on the fact that someone, somewhere decided that this was "art" and so it could sell for stupid money, when it could just as easily have been a photo that someone took for fun and it ended up in a drawer somewhere. I was wondering at what point does it cross over to being art, is it simply because the photographer told people it was art and gave the picture an arty sounding name?

Zaph

Fajitas! wrote: »

Anyone could paint the Mona Lisa with a Paint-By-Numbers set, but only one person did, if you get me

Trust me, even with a paint-by-numbers set I could make a mess of it.

sineadw

Sherman has produced an entire body based on this concept. This isn't a one off snap - it's one of a series of internationally renowned images, challenging how women are portrayed in media.

If you take your logic through, what exactly *is* art then? Just the stuff you like personally?

Fajitas!

Well, moreso because the photographer committed to shooting this as a project over 3 years. Anybody can call something 'art', but being able to stand behind it with your reasonings, your concept, what you wanted from the art and what you wanted your audience to get from it is what makes it different from being 'just another snapshot'.

This, in combination with who the artist is is a huge deciding factor - Sherman is a well established photographer, artist and director. Her work is very collectable, hence the price.

If you're interested, here's the previous list of 'mot expensive photographs' - http://blogs.photopreneur.com/the-most-expensive-photographs-ever-sold

Fajitas!

Zaph wrote: »

Trust me, even with a paint-by-numbers set I could make a mess of it.

It'd be an original then, you'd probably get more money for it..

Goodshape

The photo says a lot, I thought.

Innocence, loss of innocence, uncertainty, growing up, being young, haircuts you live to regret.


Meh, I like it. Going to Google some more of this ladies work.