john_a5 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>I still don't get why anyone here really cares, I personally think it is great. </p> <p>I just don't see other artists sitting around complaining or aghast because a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._5,_1948">Pollack went for $140 million</a> or a <a href="http://arthistory.about.com/od/spec_events/ig/Christie-s-Evening-Sale-051607/christies_051607_01.htm">Warhol for $71 million (which is kind of a photo)</a>. <br> It is true there are fools and their money, I have seen that more than a few times back in the 80's with someone buying french impressionistic "rip offs" in tourist galleries by no name artists (only one of these was allowed in the auctions and nothing had ever sold for over $2000 back then) for $25-40,000. But these dealers involved in this case know what they are doing. It is just a different world than most of us live in--</p> <p>It doesn't matter if anyone here thinks it is a great piece or crap really, it is good for photography in general, an important piece by an important artist photographer and it should be celebrated--even if you wouldn't buy it, ...but I don't think any of us could! So, it is sort of a moot point....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I assume this was a resale so Cindy Sherman got nothing from it? James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>It doesn't matter if anyone here thinks it is a great piece or crap really, it is good for photography in general,</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't think it's bad for photography, but why would it be good ? Placing a monetary value on artworks has nothing to do with art, except that such value <em>is</em> strictly artificial and says nothing about the inherent value of the work itself or the medium in which the work is made in.<br /> Of course the artdealers know what they're doing, it's their <em>business</em>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>I think it is good for photography because we are starting to see it valued like the other arts. 10-20 years ago, I don't think many photographs going for much more than a $100,000. </p> <p>I understand that most people don't see this value for things and I don't know that I particularly like the idea of how exclusive it might make owning great art, but I don't like spitting in the wind. If the wind is blowing that way, as it has in the art world for many many years, then why shouldn't we celebrate that photography is starting to get recognized on that level. (if you want to own great art at a reasonable price, then discover someone before they make it--I have prints for sale by the way ;) )</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>Pollack=groundbreaking...I don't see anything groundbreaking in that Sherman photo.</p> <p>Oops! I just did a Cindy Sherman Photos google image search...</p> <p>Nevermind, now I get it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>"It doesn't matter if anyone here thinks it is a great piece or crap really, it is good for photography in general, an important piece by an important artist photographer and it should be celebrated..."</p> <p>That would rank the sold photo right up there with the guy who (maybe 20 years ago...) made a living (or tried to) by shooting piles of dog sh*t as work of art.</p> <p>Some people like the *dry* interior of a Porsche; and other like the *dry* interior of a Dodge truck: that is what makes the world go 'round.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_crofts Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 <p>I also think it's excellent news. Apart from the fact that I like Cindy Sherman, it means that the art market for photography is healthy, and that photography has become valued in its proper place up there with painting. The fact that I wouldn't pay $3.8m for a print is irrelevant. I wouldn't pay that much for the Mona Lisa. Or for a building worth $10m. Simply because I don't have the money. If I had many billions, so that a few million was peanuts, I might spend a few mil on a print.</p> <p>There is a direct trickle down effect for photographers who aren't famous yet from these kind of sales. Art buyers start hunting out unknown photographers hoping to buy their work before they become famous - and they know, that if they guessed right, they can sell it at a crazy profit.</p> <p>A few years ago I bought a painting for $100 or so. I see now that comparable works by the same artist are being auctioned for several thousand. It was a good investment, so far.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The remains of Ansel Adams must be a-churning 'round and 'round about now....</p> </blockquote> <p>My thoughts exactly, how is this worth more than an Adams masterpiece? This will just be motivation for 'artsy' kids with a film camera to take even more crooked shots of their friends wearing 'vintage' clothing...how 'eclectic.'</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 <p>Maybe I should print off one of these and take it to art shows. I'll tell people that someone paid over $3 million for this, so wouldn't $25 for my (better) photo be a steal?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 <p>Nathan, I had similar thoughts as you on that one particular image.</p> <p>But its value is based from her reputation she built from her total body of work which if you take a look shows <strong>something no one has seen before</strong> especially in self portraiture.</p> <p>That's the gold standard for photography or any image making for that matter IMO.</p> <p>I never heard of her until this thread. When I googled her name and saw the rest of her work, my attitude immediately changed.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_crofts Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 <blockquote> <p>how is this worth more than an Adams masterpiece?</p> </blockquote> <p>Because there are people like me around who think that her work is incomparably more interesting and better than Adams.</p> <p>I'm a great admirer of Ansel Adams - but only of his writing and his techniques, not his pictures.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 <p>The question of why not an Adams or a Weston might be more about rarity than anything else.</p> <p>I don't think anyone would dispute either one of these people as being seminal figures in the world of photography and probably every bit as important as Sherman, but although their prints command--especially the vintage prints--a lot of money, there are a lot of prints of those images available. Even after Adams quit printing and selling images to the public (it took 4 years to fill the orders made once he announced it) he made his museum sets, which included most of his major work--I don't know how many he made before his death, but the idea was to make some 2500 prints from about 70 negatives. Sherman's work is in editions of maybe 10 or less? And there is no one making more prints and selling them like those of Adams and Weston (I don't know if anyone is making more of Weston's now that Cole is dead, but I think Alan Ross is still making those 8x10 prints of Adam's work).</p> <p>Simon's suggestion is maybe an indicator of another factor and that is the conceptual nature of the work. Not to minimize Adams or Weston, but in a simplistic way of saying this, there is less of an individuality to the types of images they made compared to Sherman or Wall or Gursky's work (I heard Gursky and Wall might only release one or two images--in editions of 3 or so--per year). Although there are certainly more people working in conceptual areas these days, the number of folks making landscape images has a very long history and works by Watkins, O'Sullivan or Sexton and Barnbaum et al are very similar. Again, I am not minimizing the work itself just that there is a fundamental difference between it and the others.</p> <p>Most people on the street or on photo sites would probably find more value to them in an Adams' piece than in a Sherman, but the criteria are just different in the art world. But as to importance of the people and their contribution, I would be surprised if Sherman would be considered more important than Adams to the medium.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis_g Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 <p>how is this worth more than an Adams masterpiece?</p> <p>Easy. Demand vs. supply. It's not just because there are people like Simon -- or I -- that think the work is outstanding, but mote to the point, many other people. Historians, Educators, Museum Directors, Dept heads, Board members, and collectors.</p> <p>The significance of the work, the very limited # of prints, etc. may be lost on some, but on people whose business it is to know, and those who have actually made enough money to lay down $4m for a work of art it is not. Easy to diss the whole thing, a little harder to understand, and a lot harder to amass the fortune that it takes to buy a thing like that.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p>I don't think it has anything to do with not understanding if one thinks it's ridiculous to put a value of 4 million dollars on any photograph, or painting, etc...for that matter, let alone 140 million.<br> When cultural value is turned into monetary value, soon enough the monetary value becomes cultural value.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p>Phylo, didn't that horse leave the barn quite a while ago....</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplegate Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p>I wondered if this was a hoax! But it checks out on the Christies website: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5437823</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riz Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p>Whats so special about this pic. See without your mind knowing that it was so for that much $$$s and then analyze.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis_g Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p>It, and the rest in the series, were like nothing else back in the day.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p>Regardless of Cindy Sherman, I think what's said in <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/05/13/136273419/meet-the-worlds-most-expensive-photo">this article</a> has definitely some truth in it :</p> <p><em>"What matters to most of those collectors is winning. When art becomes a competitive sport,"</em> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p><a href="http://arthag.typepad.com/.a/6a011571160e4a970c0120a5791b7d970c-800wi">This series</a> by Mike Kelley sold for "only" $1,022,500, while Gilbert & George's<em> <a href="http://www.artnet.com/artists/lotdetailpage.aspx?lot_id=DAF166C0458665DC0DD6404AA08FA696">Bad Thoughts #1</a></em> went for $1,538,500.</p> <p>http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/37667/art-market-shakes-off-the-blues-with-christies-dazzling-3016-million-contemporary-sale/</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_thomas1 Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p>Refering to "<em>What matters to most of those collectors is winning. When art becomes a competitive sport,"......... </em><br /><em></em><br />1. Burning blankets: As a youngster in the early television days (late 40s) there was a Sunday evening show, that sometimes showcased the efforts of Martin Elmer and Osa Helen Johnson, a team of African explorers. They were sometimes the first Westerners to see and be seen by a tribe or group. I remember one show where they documented a tribe that determined status by a contest of burning blankets. Blankets were a sign of wealth (tribal Rolls Royce?). Whoever burned the most won, but was left "poor". Still they were acknowledged as the most important family in the tribe. Because I was just dumb kid and not a member of the important art world, I guess I didn't "get it".</p> <p>2. A winner: In my middle age (1976) there was a popular Country and Western song titled "THE WINNER" by Bobby Bare. I'm sure the self appointed suto-intellectual art world glittery would not stoop to listen to C&W, but if they did maybe they would understand what being an auction winner is. Care to know what that kind of winner is? go to:</p> <p><a href=" <p>and listen to the words. <br /><br />^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^</p> <p>As to a comment by Luis G, May 26, 2011; 07:01 p.m.</p> <p>".... and those who have actually made enough money to lay down $4m for a work of art..."</p> <p>*****************</p> <p>At one time in my life I was financially fortunate enough to attended those types of auctions. My aim was to buy historically significant items for eventual placement in museum type environments. I both knew many of the people and knew of the private and business lives of many of the people who were the most "wild bidders". Not a single one paid their household help a living wage nor provided workman's comp or medical insurance. Was I supposed to show these chiselers respect for their lavish spending/bidding ability that occurred partially because they had shorted the people who cared for their children (and a lot of others as well)?</p> <p>P.S. If you meant to indicate $4,000,000.00 I think the abbreviation would be 4MM? At 4M ($4,000.00) I could bid even in my reduced financial ability of today :)<br /><em></em><br /><em></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis_g Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 <p><strong>Art Thomas - "</strong>P.S. If you meant to indicate $4,000,000.00 I think the abbreviation would be 4MM? At 4M ($4,000.00) I could bid even in my reduced financial ability of today :)"</p> <p>Where I live, 4MM is four millimeters. $4,000.00 is abbreviated into $4k, and $4,000,000.00 is $4m. I have also seen it used in English transactions.Since this is PN, and this type of thing can turn into a fracas or never-ending argument, here's a few references:</p> <h2> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top"> <p><strong>How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement<br /> </strong>© <a href="mailto:rowlett@email.unc.edu">Russ Rowlett</a> and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill</p> </td> <td valign="top"> <p><a href="http://www.unc.edu/%7Erowlett/units/index.html">Table of Contents</a><br /> <a href="http://www.unc.edu/%7Erowlett/units/introd.html">About the Dictionary</a><br /> <a href="http://www.unc.edu/%7Erowlett/units/using.html">Using the Dictionary</a></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> M</h2> <dl><dt><strong>M [1]</strong></dt><dd>an informal abbreviation for million in expressions such as "$500M" for 500 million dollars or "Unemployment Reaches 4M" in a newspaper headline. In binary contexts such as computer memory, M often represents 2<sup>20</sup> = 1 048 576 (see mebi-, below). </dd><dt><strong>M [2]</strong></dt><dd>the <a href="http://www.unc.edu/%7Erowlett/units/roman.html">Roman numeral</a> 1000, sometimes used in symbols to indicate a thousand, as in <strong>Mcf</strong>, a traditional symbol for 1000 cubic feet. Given the widespread use of M to mean one million, this older use of M to mean one thousand is very confusing and should be scrapped.</dd><dt><strong>M [3]</strong></dt><dd>the symbol for "molar" in chemistry (see below).</dd><dd>_________________________________________________</dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd>In Financial Times, 'm' is used for million, and bn for billion.</dd><dd><br /></dd><dd>_________________________________________________</dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><strong>Art - "</strong>I remember one show where they documented a tribe that determined status by a contest of burning blankets.</dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd>They are called Kwakiutls.<br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><strong>Art Thomas - </strong>"Blankets were a sign of wealth (tribal Rolls Royce?). Whoever burned the most won, but was left "poor".</dd><dd><br /></dd><dd>Not really. If you had read sociologists instead of watching TV, you would know most of what they were burning was surplus, and the next year, they would burn even more.<br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd>BTW, as long as you're so amenable to issuing corrections, I'm sure you won't be offended to receiving them as well.</dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><strong>Art Thomas - "...</strong>suto-intellectual art world glittery..."</dd><dd><br /></dd><dd>Art, there is no such word. <h1 ></h1> <h1 >suto</h1> - no dictionary results </dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd>You've phoneticized the rather common word "pseudo". Interesting.<br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd><dd><br /></dd></dl> <p><em></em></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_thomas1 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 <p ><a name="00YnWy"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, May 27, 2011; 10:57 p.m. </p> <p > </p> <p >Hello....</p> <p > </p> <p >I know you're sincere and made some good points. Because of your excellent use of the English language with its American derivatives, I mistakenly presumed you were a fellow American. As you read my responses, please also go back and see that I put a smiley face at the end of the comment about the 4m. I'm probably a bit older than you, having programmed my first computer in the early 1950s, and was active in computers in the late '70s and early '80s, a time when there were few graphics available and we had to make them out of typical typewriter characters. </p> <p > </p> <p >In America, in my day in the financial world, MM was a million and only used where money was being defined, whether it was dollars, pounds, or francs. I realize changes occur in our lexicon that I, long retired, living in a remote area, may not have kept up with. I did however check the net to be sure that my failing memory was not at fault and was reassured by the definitions I looked at. They were admittedly only the first one or two on the list, but my motive was just to see things had not changed since I used terms like that on a daily basis 40 years ago. In my father's era, "hot" meant something that was fashionable and/or in style, as well as heated. "Cool" in my era, although technically something of low temperature, was at that point also used to be fashionable and/or in style. Now I understand the current word is "sick," go figure.</p> <p > </p> <p >Of course I'm not offended receiving corrections as well. You also did a good job of documenting your argument. But in addition, although it seems as both my and your use are documented on the internet, I will take for granted that yours is the more modern useage. </p> <p > </p> <p >Now as to the tribe....</p> <p > </p> <p >I quoted that which I saw on TV in the late 1940s or maybe as late as 1950. At that time, the movie film taken by the Johnsons was old, if I had to guess, at least maybe by 10-20 years. Most young people in their grade school through high school years don't have PhDs in sociology. They're kids. There was some trash on the TV, but a lot of it was made up of some pretty good shows and certainly had a much higher percentage of intellectually-centered programming, such as would be found several years ago on channels like History and Discovery. Even if some of it was wrong because they got it wrong, or because enough studies, visits, etc. had not yet been made by that year to ascertain the ultimate truth, TV gave us young kids a lot more knowledge than TV does today. </p> <p > </p> <p >Maybe much more has been learned since then and your statements would be correct for the tribe that they visited. It could also be the tribe you cited was not the tribe the Johnsons visited. I don't have much spare time between now and September, but if I can remember, I'll do a little research and see if they could be the same tribe. Just finding a reference on the internet to the correct Johnsons took a little digging, so they may be long forgotten. I'm also old enough to have seen complete cycles, where something was considered the absolute and final truth, reversed and then reversed back. You've certainly piqued my curiosity. </p> <p > </p> <p >Suto....</p> <p > </p> <p >Yes, I know there is no such word. I had tongue-in-cheek misspelled both "pseudo" and "intellectual," but I did not catch that the spelling checker had corrected "intellectual" but had not shown "suto" as being an improper word. This makes twice this week that the damn spelling checker has corrected something, either properly that I wanted to look improper, or improperly that I wanted to look proper. But I must take responsibility for my diminished ability to proofread the final product due to my age and general health. Getting old isn't for sissies. </p> <p > </p> <p >Now as to the principles I was attempting to point out....from foolish bidders overbidding to "win" to the type of people who often are those foolish bidders, I'll defend strongly. I've been their banker and later a semi-peer. After my tenure in the banking world, I then sat on my city's wholesale credit association review group and continued to be aware of some of these same business people, fully capable of paying their trade credit on time, just using the money for 90-180 days past the agreed payment date, almost smiling at the hardship it created on smaller, less financially able suppliers. I lived in a remote area of the city with little residential parking available. Most housekeepers, butlers, maids, and gardeners rode the same bus in and out of the area. They gossiped as they rode the bus. That allowed me to hear from the horse's mouth (rather than the other end) how they were treated by their employers. Because I paid proper wages and benefits, and tried to be generally fair and equitable, my household help felt they could share the gossip with me from time to time. </p> <p > </p> <p >I'm afraid I just was raised by people to feel that honor in both business and personal life was of higher value than the ability to burn blankets. My bad. </p> <p > </p> <p >P.S. (Again) I will even admit to being guilty to paying too much for an item at a carriage trade type auction. Shamefully, I was high bidder on one of the English royalty's automobiles. It was the one mentioned in these articles: </p> <p > </p> <p ><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328978/Princess-Anne-reunited-Jim-Beaton-saved-kidnap-36-years-ago.html">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328978/Princess-Anne-reunited-Jim-Beaton-saved-kidnap-36-years-ago.html</a></p> <p > </p> <p ><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/31/world/main664201.shtml?source=search_story">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/31/world/main664201.shtml?source=search_story</a></p> <p > </p> <p >First, may I say just because it's in print by a supposedly responsible news agency doesn't mean it's right. The automobile was not a Rolls Royce. The serial number on the car matched the serial number of the car in question. Also, when we partially dismantled the car to do some re-skinning, we found the unrepaired bullet holes in the covered up body framing (that I consider poor pride of workmanship). Both those factors I consider better documentation than reading an article by either a sensationalist, hurried, or inexperienced reporter. </p> <p > </p> <p >Okay, I paid too much for it. Thing is, the motive was to gift the use of it to my mother-in-law who was an Anglophyle. Shortly after we had spruced up the car, Queen Elizabeth visited our city and held mass at the MIL's church. The MIL was able to attend the church in a chauffeur-driven limousine formerly owned by that queen and be blessed personally, kneeling before her. She said it was the finest moment in her life. So maybe the price wasn't too high. On the other hand, I'm Irish. I don't kneel before anybody, nor could I ever conceive it as a fine moment or a privilege. Despite many similar attempts to enrich her life and despite that we were past the Age of Aquarius, she never got over the fact that her genetically English daughter married an Irishman. Of course, the daughter and I were both Americans. Still, it was about the same as if it had been Alabama in 1870 and her daughter was Caucasian and I was of African descent. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis_g Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 <p><strong>Art Thomas - "</strong>Because of your excellent use of the English language with its American derivatives, I mistakenly presumed you were a fellow American."</p> <p>Thank you, and yes, I am indeed a fellow (naturalized) American who has lived here for over five decades. You have a fine command of the language yourself. Interesting stories and insights, btw.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_a5 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 <p>Art, about the money designation, I think it is interesting because I spent most of the 70's and all of the 80's in Banking and Corporate Finance and although I would say that generally the K= 1000's and the M=millions, there were times when people did use the M for 1000s and MM for millions. I am not so sure that I didn't use the M and MM when in college as the M was just shorthand for 3 0's. But most were using the K and M only by the time I was working in the field (in the US) and I had to adapt to that pretty quickly.</p> <p>Anyway, to me the whole point isn't how someone treats others or that people are throwing their money away or not, the point to me is that photography is starting to be valued more like the other arts. Bottom line, I think that is a good thing, all the rest is superfluous really as I can't control what others do. Photography has actually been in favor now for several years, with many of the major art shows which once were mostly paintings and sculpture now being dominated by photography--and I am talking about high end gallery type gatherings in New York and LA not local art fairs. In the last several years, the prices have been starting to reflect this increased interest and it is great, IMO, that prices keep moving up in photography. Maybe an Adams will get over a million soon!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now