Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.

john5189 wrote in post #17240159
We all want to find a rich mug!
Nothing wrong with making a rich dim-wit willingly part with some of their fortune for an ephemeral status symbol.

So the guy making over 2 million dollars on 30K investment in 20 years is a dim wit?

Yeah about the way most around here think.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17239540
Great Photographers on the Internet

PhotosGuy,

That was awesome. Thanks for posting the link.

gossamer88 wrote in post #17240017
Can't believe 'Afghan Girl' isn't on the list.

I can remember the first time I saw Afghan Girl on the magazine stand. I just went WOW. I've been a Steve McCurry fan ever since.

Another image that had a profound effect on me was the pic of Kim Phuc after her village was napalmed. If you do a bit of reading, check out The Girl in the Picture. A very good read.

yogestee wrote in post #17240828
I can remember the first time I saw Afghan Girl on the magazine stand. I just went WOW. I've been a Steve McCurry fan ever since.

Another image that had a profound effect on me was the pic of Kim Phuc after her village was napalmed. If you do a bit of reading, check out The Girl in the Picture. A very good read.

Interesting. McCurry finally met his subject a few years ago. He even took her picture again.

IMAGE LINK: http://ngm.nationalgeo​graphic.com …04/afghan-girl/index-text

gossamer88 wrote in post #17241489
Interesting. McCurry finally met his subject a few years ago. He even took her picture again.

IMAGE LINK: http://ngm.nationalgeo​graphic.com …04/afghan-girl/index-text

Yeah,, I saw the doco. Interesting how they finally caught up with her.

My wife calls this pic my 'Afghan Girl'. I took this in a little village in the mountains of northern Laos nine years ago. I'd love to go back and find her to get an updated shot.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Regarding the 10 most expensive photos:
One doesn't buy the "Art".
One buys the "Artist".

andrikos wrote in post #17241646
Regarding the 10 most expensive photos:
One doesn't buy the "Art".
One buys the "Artist".

Which may often become a mistake -- after spending that kind of money, I'd prefer to enjoy what I would buy with it, if I had it to begin with - which I don't. Nothing here I'd hang on my walls tho' ... Maybe Billy the Kid, for it's historic significance.

boring, all of them. does nothing for me

Karl Johnston wrote in post #17241923
boring, all of them. does nothing for me

Couldn't agree more Karl. Most held my attention for about 10 seconds. The Billie the Kid shot for 15 because of its historical significance.

Karl Johnston wrote in post #17241923
boring, all of them. does nothing for me

Same here... The Billy the Kid one was the only cool one... But if I would have passed by that in a store and it was on sale for $50, I likely would have passed on it then too!

clearly the forum is not a place for art photography, looking at the comments. if you don't know what concept Sherman has been developing for her entire career of course you wont appreciate her images, as her work is as much about the concept behind as it is about the image. she plays with traditional pop culture cliches, so a lot of her images are purposely gaudy. art is not always "nice to look at", at least not since the impressionist.

great link PhotosGuy

ziemowit wrote in post #17244029
clearly the forum is not a place for art photography, looking at the comments. if you don't know what concept Sherman has been developing for her entire career of course you wont appreciate her images, as her work is as much about the concept behind as it is about the image. she plays with traditional pop culture cliches, so a lot of her images are purposely gaudy. art is not always "nice to look at", at least not since the impressionist.

great link PhotosGuy

Well of course there is 'art', and then there is 'good art', and the definitions of those tend to change between people.

I think there are a lot of artists out there doing cool and neat things, which I think are important to our cultural development, but I personally find the work they produce to be utterly boring and uninteresting to look at more than once or twice. It is the kind of thing that deserves to be on public display. Something that would stay out for a time while it is highly relevant to the current time period, and then shifted over to a rotating collection where they bring 'historic' pieces out for a few weeks every now and then.

ziemowit wrote in post #17244029
clearly the forum is not a place for art photography, looking at the comments. if you don't know what concept Sherman has been developing for her entire career of course you wont appreciate her images, as her work is as much about the concept behind as it is about the image. she plays with traditional pop culture cliches, so a lot of her images are purposely gaudy. art is not always "nice to look at", at least not since the impressionist….

Yeah, phooey on the plebeians who prefer nice-to-look-at art and who don't appreciate that Cindy Sherman has developed a concept her entire career!

Thankfully, some of us know better.

Tedder wrote in post #17244121
Yeah, phooey on the plebeians who prefer nice-to-look-at art and who don't appreciate that Cindy Sherman has developed a concept her entire career!

Thankfully, some of us know better.

well, some people prefer waterfalls to concepts. god bless them too.

ziemowit wrote in post #17244138
well, some people prefer waterfalls to concepts. god bless them too.

Yes, but only upon getting a thumbs-up from Cindy Sherman can those poor rubes rest in the assurance that they've received approval from on high.