• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Highest price ever paid for a photograph

IDB87 said:
Why not?

I don't understand photography as an art.
Click to expand...


I thought I did, but apparently not, which is why I asked the question. Not knowing much about the subject or the photographer, I don't think that is a very good photograph in any conventional sense, and nothing I would hang up on a wall.

IDB87 said:
Is there nothing you'd pay 3.9 million for?
Click to expand...

If I could afford it, sure. But nothing like that.
 
IDB87 said:
I don't understand photography as an art.
Click to expand...

I take it that you accept that aesthetically pleasing, evocative or challenging images can be art? If so, why does it matter how they are made?
 
I suppose that picture could be described as challenging and evocative.
 
AdMan said:
I don't think that is a very good photograph in any conventional sense, and nothing I would hang up on a wall.
Click to expand...

I like the photograph, I like the use of colour, the framing and the way everything is on the skew which gives it a slight feeling of chaos.
Is it the best photo ever? Not in my opinion but it's not a bad photograph.

The pricers paid for art stopped being related to the works artistic merit a long time ago, if there ever was any connection, so I won't try to defend the price tag.
 
brodski said:
I take it that you accept that aesthetically pleasing, evocative or challenging images can be art? If so, why does it matter how they are made?
Click to expand...

I suppose it's because I've never taken a deep interest in it. Most of what I've seen has been amateurish high-school students photographing their bands or doing candids. Nothing really evocative or challenging about THAT!

I guess it's kind of like not being able to appreciate classical music because you haven't heard anything by Beethoven or Mozart, or any real decent symphony.
 
According to ArtInfo.com, the buyer was New York dealer Philippe Segalot,
Click to expand...
Which suggests he plans to sell it. Presumably for MORE money.

Either that, or use it as a form of advertising: "Look, I have WORLD'S MOST EXPENSIVE PHOTOGRAPH! Think what else I could sell you!"
 
I personally like Cindy Sherman's early work. They're all made to look like stills from never-made Hollywood films of the 40s and 50s (like this one); as such, they were highly innovative. They're still interesting to look at, even if you don't know the story behind them.
If they were sold as cheap prints, I'd probably buy one or two. But millions? Pfft! Like somebody said, it's stamp collecting for the seriously rich.
 
Last edited:
I think whoever paid the $6.8 million for the seventeen and a half ton teddy bear got more for their money.

(But it's gonna be a lot tougher to hang on their wall.)


ETA: Photos here, for the curious. It really looks kinda cute.
 
Last edited:
To explain why I would pay that much for a piece of art work, I'll try and parallel the importance of speculating/profiting from the price of food relative to basic human principal.

I'd rather give food away and pay for art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom