Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 29 Oct 2014 (Wednesday) 04:18
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.

 
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,186 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8333
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Oct 31, 2014 21:10 |  #91

Tedder wrote in post #17244690 (external link)
Unless you know that Cornell University's house style calls for "judgement" over "judgment" or shows no preference, your tsk-tsking is amiss and makes you look irritable and picky.

Are you going to think about the possible value of comments that might help you get your arguments taken more seriously, or are you going to play "I know you are, but what am I?" The latter will get your arguments taken less seriously.

I don't have to know anything about Cornell U's house style to make the assertion I made. You wrote: "Jirousek, who was born and educated in Minnesota and taught at Cornell University in New York, either didn't know it or didn't care." I'm saying simply that you don't have the right kind of evidence to conclude that Jirousek didn't know it or didn't care. Other possible explanations exist, not only the one about house style. For example, perhaps J knew and cared, but the spelling in print is a typesetting error that wasn't caught.

Tedder wrote in post #17244695 (external link)
Then, like me, you disagree with the following assertion made in post 41, correct?:

>>>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.

I don't know enough about Sherman's work or its history to have an informed opinion there. What I disagree with is leaping from "You need to know the concept if you're to appreciate conceptual art" to "You need to know the concept if you're to appreciate any art."


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Karl ­ Johnston
Cream of the Crop
9,334 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2008
     
Oct 31, 2014 21:12 |  #92
bannedPermanent ban

Curiously, I wonder what the photographers kept, or if most of the money went towards them. Or if it's a big auction or gallery agent that sold it for them and kept a huge commission.

Or if they had to wait until they weren't around anymore before these pieces reached such a remarkable amount of $
like van gogh or claude monet


Adventurous Photographer, Writer (external link) & Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,705 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6918
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 31, 2014 21:23 |  #93

If I'm not mistaken the Gursky original sold a long time ago to a collector for a fraction of the price it recently got. So the collector made the real money as usual.

Karl post #17
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=17239575&po​stcount=17




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
389 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 31, 2014 22:10 |  #94

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17244776 (external link)
Or I'm so proud of my ignorance I put down those things I do not understand and call those with knowledge names when I my energy would be far better spent trying to understand and learn about those things that I am ignorant about.


Yeah, I see that a lot, oftentimes with the ignorant party being eager to portray himself as having a superior level of expertise and then assigning himself the task of enlightening anyone who doesn't care for a given artwork. It goes kind of like this:

You don't like that photo by Cindy Sherman!? Well, too bad you aren't as knowledgeable as I am!



Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link)
Classical Beam Theory Revisited (external link)
Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
389 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 31, 2014 22:20 |  #95

OhLook wrote in post #17244794 (external link)
...I don't know enough about Sherman's work or its history to have an informed opinion thereā€¦.


In that case, perhaps you can revisit the question later.



Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link)
Classical Beam Theory Revisited (external link)
Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,705 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6918
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Oct 31, 2014 22:45 |  #96

Tedder wrote in post #17244864 (external link)
Yeah, I see that a lot, oftentimes with the ignorant party being eager to portray himself as having a superior level of expertise and then assigning himself the task of enlightening anyone who doesn't care for a given artwork. It goes kind of like this:

You don't like that photo by Cindy Sherman!? Well, too bad you aren't as knowledgeable as I am!

Well you can certainly read back and clearly see (or maybe not, comprehending can be hard for some) that there is a big difference in liking or not liking something and still seeing the relevance in work. But that would take real reading skills. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
389 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 31, 2014 22:57 |  #97

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17244916 (external link)
Well you can certainly read back and clearly see (or maybe not, comprehending can be hard for some) that there is a big difference in liking or not liking something and still seeing the relevance in work. But that would take real reading skills. ;)



You've made a really good point there. Reading skill, much like the level of artistic expertise required to appreciate the photos of Cindy Sherman, is lacking in some benighted souls.

Thank goodness, there are still some of us around who can both read and appreciate Cindy, huh, airfrog? ;)



Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link)
Classical Beam Theory Revisited (external link)
Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,186 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8333
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Oct 31, 2014 22:58 |  #98

Tedder wrote in post #17244876 (external link)
In that case, perhaps you can revisit the question later.

Perhaps. Nevertheless, knowing more about Sherman's work wouldn't change my belief that understanding the concept is more relevant to appreciating concept-based art than to appreciating other kinds of art. Wouldn't it be silly if things were otherwise?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17244916 (external link)
Well you can certainly read back and clearly see (or maybe not, comprehending can be hard for some) that there is a big difference in liking or not liking something and still seeing the relevance in work. But that would take real reading skills. ;)

:cry: Talking like that only encourages Tedder in his opinion that "art insiders" stand around congratulating themselves on their presumed superiority to the philistines who don't like the same things the insiders do.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tedder
Senior Member
Avatar
389 posts
Likes: 129
Joined Jan 2009
     
Oct 31, 2014 23:29 |  #99

OhLook wrote in post #17244936 (external link)
Perhaps. Nevertheless, knowing more about Sherman's work wouldn't change my belief that understanding the concept is more relevant to appreciating concept-based art than to appreciating other kinds of art. Wouldn't it be silly if things were otherwise?

That's interesting but unresponsive to the direct question I asked you in post 85. Do give it some thought and get back to me, won't you?

Also, are you qualified to expound upon the comments of Charlotte Jirousek (she who spelled "judgment" as "judgement") concerning what "level of expertise" a person must attain before calling a work of art bad? Do you believe you've achieved that level? If not, do you know anyone who has?

OhLook wrote in post #17244936 (external link)
:cry: Talking like that only encourages Tedder in his opinion that "art insiders" stand around congratulating themselves on their presumed superiority to the philistines who don't like the same things the insiders do.


That emoticon won't win the argument for you; it only makes you look like a crybaby.



Tedder Stephenson's Flickr (external link)
Various Items (external link) Mineral Matters (external link) The Bench (external link) Tracks (external link) Cars and Stripes (external link) Behind the Wheel (external link)
Classical Beam Theory Revisited (external link)
Circles of Confusion (external link) Waterous Disturbulations (external link)


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Karl ­ Johnston
Cream of the Crop
9,334 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jul 2008
     
Nov 01, 2014 00:13 |  #100
bannedPermanent ban

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17244813 (external link)
If I'm not mistaken the Gursky original sold a long time ago to a collector for a fraction of the price it recently got. So the collector made the real money as usual.

Karl post #17
https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=17239575&po​stcount=17

thank you


Adventurous Photographer, Writer (external link) & Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,705 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6918
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 07:48 |  #101

OhLook wrote in post #17244936 (external link)
Perhaps. Nevertheless, knowing more about Sherman's work wouldn't change my belief that understanding the concept is more relevant to appreciating concept-based art than to appreciating other kinds of art. Wouldn't it be silly if things were otherwise?

:cry: Talking like that only encourages Tedder in his opinion that "art insiders" stand around congratulating themselves on their presumed superiority to the philistines who don't like the same things the insiders do.

Anyone can dislike something but still see why it is important or like something and still see that it's not. That's not something insider other than overall intelligence. I like some TV shows, some music, some visuals and even though I like them I still know that they are just mindless entertainment. Just like with Witkin I really don't care for his work but clearly see why he is first and artist and second why his work is important.

The argument for ignorance has no bite because all you have to do is learn and that has never been easier. Knowledge is the sure cure for ignorance. You can go to museums, art galleries, libraries and/or just click the mouse and knowledge is there. And you can learn by using your eyes, heart and mind but they all have to be open. It really is that simple but you first have to have a real love for art. And if you don't have that why be in a creative artistic field?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 189
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Nov 01, 2014 08:32 |  #102

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17244633 (external link)
Ya know, there is a pretentious attitude that runs in some that think they know more than those collectors that have bought some of this work. What is really funny is those that bought it early have all made a lot of money and yet many act is if those that made a lot of money are the idiots and they themselves have some knowledge that the work is crap and they know more yet they are the ones on the outside looking in. Maybe there might be something to finding out why those images have sold for big $$$.

And getting back to some of those images you refer to we do not about the artists and about their intent because of history. Many have written about their work, their influences and why they created what they did.

And some people made tonnes of money selling Bre-X stock...

The insane amounts of money that some of this art goes for is more a tale of how idiotic and broken modern capitalism and class system has become than one of art itself. How many collectors have paid nice chunks of cash for 'art' they admit they don't actually like, but instead merely see it as an investment because they know the 'artist' is going to be 'worth something some day'?


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,705 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6918
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 09:25 |  #103

Well, the real test was those that bought for maybe 10K and sold for 3 million. That is real and why this conversation is taking place. The fact remains that those photographs got exactly what they were worth and we as other photographers should be really happy that photographs are now fetching what was reserved to paintings and other art forms. And I really like the Weston, Sherman's and the Gursky's. If I were rich I would probably have a few Bressons, a Callahan or two, a Weston of the single Cypress at Point Lobos, A couple of Bruce Davidson's from Brooklyn Gang and East 100th Street, Stieglitz's Steerage and I do prefer those images over these but I can still appreciate these other images and do understand why these other images are important.

Yep a free market has it's up and down sides and I truly wish it were the artists that made the real $$$ though some are doing really well now even though most didn't get those big paychecks it was instead those that had money that invested in the work when it was a lot cheaper.

And there are plenty of collectors that are real art lovers out there to. They invest because they love the work and many are very knowledgeable. I knew a collector when I was in college that was a very good photographer. He stopped taking photographs because he said he found he had nothing more to say visually. He was very wealthy and started to collect photography. When he died he donated his prints and portfolios to the college I was going to and that work is now worth a small fortune. He loved photography and art. His passion was his driving force to collect. There are a lot like him out there. Like in anything there are good, bad and everything in-between.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
insufferably pedantic. I can live with that.
Avatar
20,186 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8333
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Nov 01, 2014 10:43 |  #104

Tedder wrote in post #17244966 (external link)
That's interesting but unresponsive to the direct question I asked you in post 85. Do give it some thought and get back to me, won't you?

In #85, you asked whether I agree with a particular assertion. No, I disagree with the assertion. I thought my comments in #82 would make that clear.

Also, are you qualified to expound upon the comments of Charlotte Jirousek (she who spelled "judgment" as "judgement") concerning what "level of expertise" a person must attain before calling a work of art bad? Do you believe you've achieved that level? If not, do you know anyone who has?

I'm not interested in adding my opinions to a debate about the questions "What is art?" or "What is good art?" or "Who is qualified to call a work bad?"

That emoticon won't win the argument for you; it only makes you look like a crybaby.

I'm sorry to see you're still pursuing your strategy of trying to "win" by issuing personal insults. The emoticon expresses sadness, not whininess. I used it because I was disappointed by the tone of airfrog's reply. He and you take jabs at each other. For a civil and fruitful discussion, that would have to stop. You'd also have to stop taking jabs at me. What happened to the high road here? There's so little traffic on it. Is it closed for repairs?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17245234 (external link)
Anyone can dislike something but still see why it is important or like something and still see that it's not.

I understand, but please see the last few sentences of my third reply to Tedder in this post.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,705 posts
Gallery: 160 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 6918
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Nov 01, 2014 10:50 |  #105

OhLook wrote in post #17245556 (external link)
In #85, you asked whether I agree with a particular assertion. No, I disagree with the assertion. I thought my comments in #82 would make that clear.

I'm not interested in adding my opinions to a debate about the questions "What is art?" or "What is good art?" or "Who is qualified to call a work bad?"

I'm sorry to see you're still pursuing your strategy of trying to "win" by issuing personal insults. The emoticon expresses sadness, not whininess. I used it because I was disappointed by the tone of airfrog's reply. He and you take jabs at each other. For a civil and fruitful discussion, that would have to stop. You'd also have to stop taking jabs at me. What happened to the high road here? There's so little traffic on it. Is it closed for repairs?

I understand, but please see the last few sentences of my third reply to Tedder in this post.

Oh Look if I'm attacked I will swing back and if it's a red car someone can call it blue all day long. The fact remains it's still red. ;)

These images sold for big bucks to people that for the most part know what they are doing. They are not idiots with to much money. How many images do you see that look like those that sold for big bucks? Not many. If the work all looks the same then it will naturally have little value. No need to spend big bucks on something that's a dime a dozen. Almost all of the artists involved are important to the art form and history has shown us that. The fact remains those images sold for big bucks and someone made a lot of money and those people that made a lot for money are not idiots that don't know what they are doing. We should all be such idiots. Whether someone personally likes the work or not is quite alright. I don't like it all. But what does get to me from time to time is the fact no one wants to try and really find out why the work is valuable and it has never been easier to learn but it is a hard long journey. One that might take folks into places they once hated. I remember shooting my mouth off in class one time and said to one of my art teachers that anyone can do that. Her reply was, then do it....This is not as easy as it looks or near as shallow as some would try and convince you that it is. I think that sjones was the only really smart one in this conversation.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

22,715 views & 0 likes for this thread
Ten of the Most Expensive Photographs Ever Sold.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is justingiunto
904 guests, 281 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.