"The most valuable photograph in the world"

<p>http://blog.thedaily.com/post/5453425631/photojojo-have-you-seen-the-most-valuable</p>

<p>Wow. Tine to print a couple more of those I guess.</p>

<p>Madness. But that's the NYC art world!</p>

<p>I'm flabbergasted that anyone would pay that much for that photograph. To my eyes, there's nothing exceptional about it. It's appears to be little more than a somewhat well-composed snapshot.</p>

<p>I've schooled myself to become more accepting over the years, but I'm kinda with Mark on this one. I wonder what the backstory on it is - is there something that makes it more valuable other than what we're seeing?</p>

<p> Well I can certainly see any Cindy Sherman photo having a high value since she has achieved a high level of success. Still the price for the photo is higher then I can imagine. A nice day for whoever sold the photo. </p>

<p><a href="http://livingproper.com/2011/05/1981-portrait-%E2%80%98untitled-96%E2%80%99-from-cindy-sherman-fetches-an-unprecedented-3-89-million-at-auction/">http://livingproper.com/2011/05/1981-portrait-%E2%80%98untitled-96%E2%80%99-from-cindy-sherman-fetches-an-unprecedented-3-89-million-at-auction/</a><br>

Reading a little more about Cindy Sherman, this photo fits into a very strong body of work about parodies of stereotypes, so as part of that you can see why this self-portrait is important. However, that's a lot of money for a print that is, if I understand it correctly, only one of multiple versions. Definitely some disposable income there.</p>

<p>I stopped bidding at $3.5 million. I couldn't really justify spending any more.</p>

<p>What would this photo have been bought for, if it also had a title ?</p>

<p>Madness? Matt, try free market economics. It was a very well-known print, part of a very small edition (ten, i think), none have come up for sale for years, and two bidders who are trying to complete the series competed to get the work bid furiously against one another with real money.</p>

<p>It's really great to see a photograph by a woman (and a self-portrait at that) holding the record. Sherman was always jealous that her ex, Richard Prince, held the record at one time (for about $1m.). Jealous no more.</p>

<p>I have absolutely no problem, Luis, with people spending whatever they want on any object they'd like to purchase, for whatever reason they'd like to, whenever, wherever they have a mind to. It is indeed a market, and more power to Sherman, and to whoever actually sold the print. Hell, more power to the person who bought it, and to Christie's on their commission, too. Good work, all.<br /><br />That doesn't mean I think it's worth over $3 million. "Madness" is a reference to <em>my</em> sense of the value of the transaction. Obviously it's only worth that in some larger context (the collection, as you note), not for its own sake as print upon which to gaze. Which is the usual story in cases like this. And hence my reference to the NYC-style art scene, which can be a strangely insular, if not incestuous and entirely self-referential universe in which some artists happen to strike a note that's in perfect tune with that scene's natural, if sometimes goofy resonance. <br /><br />I'm not complaining, though. Not counting the commissioned/commercial stuff I shoot, pretty much everything I manage to sell is pure frippery, with value that's only in certain buyers' minds. And if I have the chutzpah to ask a few hundred dollars for something it's because I've learned that the same happy madness (above) operates at smaller scales, too. But a million here, a million there, pretty soon we're talking about real money.</p>

<p>Had I been bidding, I would have saved exactly $3,889,999.00, or any amount over one dollar.</p>

<p>The remains of Ansel Adams must be a-churning 'round and 'round about now....</p>

<p>Here's my reaction in the form of my self portrait to the price paid for that Cindy Sherman self portrait.</p><div></div>

<p>Did I skeeertchya' with that one?</p>

<p>There is a photo hanging in the New York City Metropolitan Museum of Art. Taken with a 4x5 view camera out a dirty window onto the street. If you took this photo, you'd likely boot your self in the ass for wasting the film and chemicals. I forget the photographers name. Many "fine art" photos can be just as baffling as to where their aesthetic lies.</p>

<p>The problem with most of these things is that people forget there is concept and context to works of art--it isn't just about pretty pictures. Except for that Steichen(?) that sold a few years ago, most of the big dollars are going to more contemporary conceptual artists. <a href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/gursky/images/99cent_pop.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/gursky/99cent_pop.html&h=351&w=650&sz=236&tbnid=pRTY93cJihWB_M:&tbnh=74&tbnw=137&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dandreas%2Bgursky%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=andreas+gursky&usg=__ZTEKkwaMl6Wne5l93r-ZB9NoCGI=&sa=X&ei=_U7dTY7pIJKztwf5jsGhDw&ved=0CCkQ9QEwAw">Gursky's print, 99 cents</a>, was the record holder for quite awhile--seemed it was just a few years ago it went for over $1million but I think I saw it sold again for over $2, maybe 3, million again recently.</p>

<p>I don't think it has anything to do with the New York Art Scene but more to do with how important or rare a piece is. New York is just the center of where the big collectors and money happen to be, and are used to being. Sherman has been a very important artist for a long time and most of her work is self portrait work. Not the type you see many times on photo sharing sites, but work that explores complex concepts and ideas. Judy Dater explored some similar concepts, but never quite as deeply as did Sherman. </p>

<p>Art isn't about pretty pictures, it is about ideas and presenting new ways of seeing, or looking at, our world. Cindy Sherman has been around quite awhile and has made her impact. I think it is great that photographers have gotten to this level, although it is still far less than what the top paintings sell for, so everything is relative, isn't it!</p>

<p>great synopsis John. Couldn't agree more.<br>

Also there is a consistency in Sherman's work that few can match.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It is funny though, I know a lot of artists, having taught at an art school, and I never once saw a group of painters sitting around bemoaning what a Pollack or Johns or Rauschenberg sold for.......</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...a strangely insular, if not incestuous and entirely self-referential universe..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That describes how memes gain currency as well. Many of the most pervasive meme images - photos and cartoons - range from barely competent to outright crude in terms of technical quality. They are recognized as iconic for reasons that often defy conventional reason, but which may be interpreted through semiotics. Perhaps that photo represents, to some viewers, a visual tautology in the same sense that <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=longcat&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi">longcat is long</a>.</p>

<p>Short version: The only significant difference between an internet hipster and the person who paid $3 million for Sherman's photo is disposable income.</p>

A photographer who I like a lot is Yasumasa Morimura. I like <a href=

"http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PST6Th5IF1c/S2g8kccAxzI/AAAAAAAAGVI/bNUhPgHCXGA/s1600-

h/yasumasa-morimura-to-my-little-sister-for-cindy-sherman-1998.jpg">his photo</a> much better.

<p>LOL! Now <em>that's</em> doing it with internets.</p>

<p>I heard the buyer bought it at the suggestion of his investment counselor. He could have paid twice the price except for the results of the councilor's last recommendation five years ago to buy AIG, GM and Chysler stock. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Art isn't about pretty pictures, it is about ideas and presenting new ways of seeing, or looking at, our world</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but it isn't about "selling for the highest price ever either", but that's the reason why we're talking about this particular photograph right now, or how it will be talked about.<br /> I think paying - <em>valuing</em> - 3 million dollars to any object is just plain ridiculous. <br /> I still like Duane Michals' take on Cindy Sherman best.<br /> http://www.jameslomax.com/images/1225.jpg<br /> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/jbakosphoto/main.jpg</p>

<p>Could be my Monitor, but I don't see anything special ?</p>

<p>I was in real estate some years ago. A widely quoted saying in the business was the bigger fool theory. That meant if you got yourself into a poor real estate investment, mostly due to your own bad judgment, lack of research or a poor inspection of the income and expenses records, etc. your only way out was to find a bigger fool than you had been to unload it onto. <br /><br />Living Proper: <br /><br /><a href="http://livingproper.com/2011/05/1981-portrait-%E2%80%98untitled-96%E2%80%99-from-cindy-sherman-fetches-an-unprecedented-3-89-million-at-auction/">http://livingproper.com/2011/05/1981-portrait-%E2%80%98untitled-96%E2%80%99-from-cindy-sherman-fetches-an-unprecedented-3-89-million-at-auction/</a><br /><br />quotes a previous price for a like print at $2,770,500, formerly the most expensive photograph ever auctioned.</p>

<p>Does this imply that the "art world" works on that same theory?</p>