| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Sherman photo sells for 3.9 million.
Luke Johnson, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
St.Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 10:40 AM on 05.14.11 |
| ->> That really sold for 3.9 million? |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 12:05 PM on 05.14.11 |
->> Amazing isn't it? All your life you've been trying to take good pictures and then you find out that that thing sells for $3.9 million...
It'd be a depressing weekend if Saturday wasn't World Nude Gardening Day. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 1:14 PM on 05.14.11 |
| ->> That's just incredible. What is it about that photo that made it so valuable? |
|
William Guerro, Photographer
|
Galloway | NJ | USA | Posted: 2:01 PM on 05.14.11 |
| ->> Freaking Amazing! Guess 1 persons trash is another persons treasure! |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 2:16 PM on 05.14.11 |
| ->> You can't fool all the people all of the time, you only need to fool ONE person at the RIGHT time. |
|
Harrison Shull, Photographer
|
Bradley Wakoff, Photographer
|
Fort Collins | CO | USA | Posted: 3:30 PM on 05.14.11 |
->> Cindy Sherman's self portraits are valued because of her complex interpretation of feminist self- and social identity and the value placed on each of those identities by modern America. You may not like what she does and you may not be willing to put down one penny to own a piece of her work and that's fine - the monetary value of art is highly subjective, as Harrison's link points out.
Still, the fact that four out of six replies on this thread thus far come from trash-talking, self-righteous men kind of proves Sherman's point. |
|
Luke Johnson, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
St.Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 4:54 PM on 05.14.11 |
->> "Cindy Sherman's self portraits are valued because of her complex interpretation of feminist self- and social identity and the value placed on each of those identities by modern America."
I'm failing to see the so called "complex interpretation of feminist self- and social identity" in the picture... Looks more like 80's version of a Facebook self portrait to me. |
|
Steven Mullensky, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Port Townsend | WA. | USA | Posted: 5:28 PM on 05.14.11 |
| ->> When I saw the headline on Ken's post I thought it was going to be a photo of Gen. Sherman. I opened the link and was flabbergasted to see an image of a girl laying on the floor. Nothing remarkable about it and surely not a cure for cancer. I'm still scratching my head. BTW; who is Cindy Sherman? |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 6:07 PM on 05.14.11 |
->> "Cindy Sherman's self portraits are valued because..."
Oh please. They're valuable because she's a shameless hustler and self-promoter who has managed to create the perfect con for the art world. |
|
William Guerro, Photographer
|
Galloway | NJ | USA | Posted: 8:27 PM on 05.14.11 |
->> @ Jim's post: "Oh please. They're valuable because she's a shameless hustler and self-promoter who has managed to create the perfect con for the art world."
Amen to that! |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Stew Milne, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | USA | Posted: 9:09 PM on 05.14.11 |
->> It's valuable because two rich people began a pissing match over the photo. Highest bidder won. It's more about the winning and not about the photo.
FWIW. my 4 year old had taken better photos. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:59 PM on 05.14.11 |
->> Christ, I had the ugly tile in the first house I ever bought. If only I had known what a spectacular background it would have made.
Bradley, I gotta disagree with you. Just because the comments came from men doesn't make them invalid. In fact, it's reverse sexism from my viewpoint if you think they are just because men made the comments.
Actually, I think Jim and Stew are onto something. All that $3.9M proves is that there are some people with too much money and not enough common sense running around. Jim's observation of nude gardening day is starting to make sense... |
|
Byron Hetzler, Photographer
|
Granby | CO | USA | Posted: 11:22 PM on 05.14.11 |
->> To any of the bidders who lost out on purchasing that photo:
I have some crap...uh, I mean stellar, yeah stellar photos as good as that one that I will let go for $100,000. |
|
Jim Comeau, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 3:19 AM on 05.15.11 |
->> As my dad always says, something's only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
That being said, I've always liked and respected Sherman's work but if I had that kind of coin to pay for a photograph, it would be for an Avedon or an Adams.
My 40% of a nickel. |
|
Jesse Jones, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Gainesville | Fl | USA | Posted: 9:23 AM on 05.15.11 |
->> David Cantor- Thanks for your post. Good to be open minded about our medium.
I came to photojournalism slightly differently than some people as the college program I went through was fine art based. So I was exposed to and came to appreciate art photography more than some of those that may not know as much about photographic artists. Sherman is one of those that has over the years elevated the status of photography in the art world. Whether you like the work or not she has made a significant contribution to the conversation about the value of photography in galleries and on the art market. So for anyone that has ever had work exhibited in a gallery or hopes to have work exhibited and or sold in a gallery say a silent thank you to Sherman for her efforts. |
|
Dennis Wierzbicki, Photographer
|
Plainfield | IL | USA | Posted: 10:30 AM on 05.15.11 |
| ->> OK, for the Photo Editors out there: let me ask you this: if Cindy Sherman were to come to you for a portfolio review, and if this shot were included in her book, would you recommend she keep it, or lose it? |
|
Bob Ford, Photographer
|
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 11:16 AM on 05.15.11 |
->> This proves the old adage that "Art is in the eye of the beholder."
Looking at the photo I would never imagine that its a $3.9 million image, but I also wouldn't imagine Warhol's Campbell Soup cans going for millions either.
Another artist that I never understood the allure of was Franz Kline, an artist that lived in our area for a while. Recently one of his abstract pieces sold at Sotherby's auction for $2.3 million.
http://www.sothebys.com/app/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=159680885 |
|
Derick Hingle, Photographer
|
Hammond | LA | USA | Posted: 12:16 PM on 05.15.11 |
->> Note to self, enter photos into auction at Christie's
Second note, figure out how to enter photos into auction at Christie's also Sotherby's auctions will work. |
|
Jesse Jones, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Gainesville | Fl | USA | Posted: 12:37 PM on 05.15.11 |
| ->> Sherman's work is better understood when you can look at her series or her entire body of work. One image presented out of context doesn't really do her body of work justice. And along with that it is photography in a different context than what the majority of people on this forum do, so you have to bear that in mind as well. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 1:17 PM on 05.15.11 |
->> Oh please. They're valuable because she's a shameless hustler and self-promoter who has managed to create the perfect con for the art world.
Most people these days consider a sports photographer asking thousands of dollars to "license" an image they have sitting around on a hard drive a "perfect con". After all, it's just bits, right? It doesn't cost you thousands of dollars to FTP the image, right? You took a thousand of those shots that day...why are you trying to charge me so much money? It's not going to cost YOU anything. Why should I pay you more just because I'm going to use it on my web site? It doesn't cost YOU anything more for me to use it on my web site. What a scam. Right?
As we know, the reason most people feel that way is they are ignorant and uninformed...and short sighted.
So it goes when sports photographers talk about the art world.
People don't pay millions for a ming vase because they need something with yellow in it to finish out the room. People don't pay $100 a ticket for nosebleed seats even though they can see the game better at home - free - on TV. People spend more on name brands over generic brands even though both come off the same production line and the ONLY difference is the pretty box.
If you apply the harsh light of "logic" to any of these decisions, they all seem silly. But if you stop there, you're sadly missing out on opportunity.
Because they key to this business - ANY business - is understanding how to get the same customer to pay you more money than the guy sitting next to you, even when that guy has the same lenses and cameras that you have.
So instead of dragging Annie Leibovitz, Terry Richardson, David LaChapelle, Richard Avedon, Cindy Sherman and others through the mud, wouldn't it make more sense to learn from them just as you would anyone else who is more successful than you? $3.9m for one print seems a whole lot better to me than $25 royalty free.
...and yeah, as someone pointed out, Cindy Sherman herself didn't get that check. But how valuable is it to be able to walk into a gallery and say, "Hi, I'm Cindy Sherman. One of my photos just sold for $3.9m, and I'd like to do a show here..." Seems like she could do that at pretty much any gallery in the world and they'd give her pretty much anything she asked for to make her happy.
Seems like a whole lot better position to be in than having to fight with a client who won't pay for your parking at a venue... |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
|
Washington | D.C. | USA | Posted: 2:47 PM on 05.15.11 |
->> David.
How insightful. I'm thankful there are intelligent and articulate photography business people like you on this board.
Now back to the gardening... |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 6:32 PM on 05.15.11 |
->> "instead of dragging Annie Leibovitz, Terry Richardson, David LaChapelle, Richard Avedon, Cindy Sherman and others through the mud.."
Who said anything about Leibovitz, Richardson, LaChapelle or Avedon? Sherman doesn't even begin to be in their league as a photographer.
Someone paid $3,900,000 for a Cindy Sherman photograph and lots of people were conned out of billions by Bernie Madoff, same s**t, different oeuvre. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 7:12 PM on 05.15.11 |
->> Someone paid $3,900,000 for a Cindy Sherman photograph and lots of people were conned out of billions by Bernie Madoff, same s**t, different oeuvre.
Cindy Sherman took a picture a couple of decades ago. Someone liked it enough to pay a few million dollars for it this week. Everyone involved - the buyers, the sellers, the auction house - did everything with full knowledge of what they were doing because it's hanging on the wall right in front of them.
You may not understand why anyone would pay that kind of money for a photo you personally think is lame. But that doesn't change the fact that someone did, and they knew exactly what they were buying when they wrote the check. |
|
Jesse Jones, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Gainesville | Fl | USA | Posted: 7:29 PM on 05.15.11 |
->> I don't understand the animosity of those here for the sale of Sherman's image. Those that are condemning the work should see if they can drum up a market of collectors of their work who would bid a single image of theirs to that price.
Sherman works in the same medium but in a different realm. Be happy that there are people out there who value photography enough to pay that much for a single print.
Now go out and shoot. |
|
Luke Johnson, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
St.Petersburg | FL | USA | Posted: 9:53 PM on 05.15.11 |
| ->> I think I found out my new line of work. Painting boxes and taking self portraits of my self with an iPhone and the Histamatic app. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 12:01 AM on 05.16.11 |
->> Luke,
Any exploration of art, imagery and photography as you describe (examining line, color, composition and form) would be a useful exercise for you (and anyone else here).
The price tag might be huge, but I fail to see how it is a bad thing that someone sees value in an image - this is something that photographers and artists are constantly battling against. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 1:45 AM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> Every single one of us here has probably taken a photo worth a million dollars. Yes, EVERY single one of us. Fortunately for some they have found their buyer. All this story does for me is inspires me to work harder on the marketing and business end of my trade. Why knock a fellow photog for snagging the brass ring? You should be spending more time searching for your buyer. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 10:20 AM on 05.16.11 |
->> "You may not understand why anyone would pay that kind of money..."
I understand it completely and I disagree with it intensely. |
|
Andrew Spear, Photographer, Assistant
|
Athens | OH | United States | Posted: 1:41 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> "Sherman works in the same medium but in a different realm. Be happy that there are people out there who value photography enough to pay that much for a single print."
"The price tag might be huge, but I fail to see how it is a bad thing that someone sees value in an image - this is something that photographers and artists are constantly battling against."
Agreed.
Seriously guys... this is the medium we work in.
Why argue with it? Why devalue a transaction that involved millions of dollars AND photography? |
|
Richard Wolowicz, Photographer
|
Montreal | QC | Canada | Posted: 1:57 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> My mother thinks every photo I make is worth that much ... she's gonna be crushed when I break the bad news. |
|
Michael Granse, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 2:11 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> I'm not sure which amazes me most, the photo selling for 3.9 million or the fact that the person who purchased it will probably be able to sell it for a profit in a year or two. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 2:46 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> Micheal, the only thing that mazes me more are some of the nasty comments....it's art. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 3:36 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Bradley,
Question your own sexual identity instead of pasting commenters on this forum. I didn't care what sex the photographer was, at face value, the photo does nothing for me. No, I wouldn't pay a cent for it, even if W. Eugene shot this photo.
I figure if this is and only will be the only print in existence, then that does involve a value if the artist is well known,
but still, it doesn't do squat for me, male or female |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 5:02 PM on 05.16.11 |
->> Scott,
Unless you're responding to a post that has been removed, I think you crossed a line with your remarks about Bradley Wakoff's posting. He was simply identifying the subject matter that Sherman's work deals with.
--Mark |
|
Doug Holleman, Photographer
|
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 11:40 PM on 05.16.11 |
| ->> I used to have that exact same crappy cheap flooring back in the 70s-80s. I wish I had known it was the magic formula for million dollar photos. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 2:11 AM on 05.17.11 |
->> I understand it completely and I disagree with it intensely.
It is unfortunate that you don't know what you don't know, otherwise you could learn a lot more. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 7:59 AM on 05.17.11 |
->> "...you don't know what you don't know..."
I have the right to my own stupid opinion, but channeling Donald Rumsfeld? How low can you get? |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 8:10 AM on 05.17.11 |
->> :-) I totally forgot about the Rumsfeld quote. I was thinking more about a Mark Twain quote that I heard a long time ago:
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
- Mark Twain |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|