| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/19/2011 03:59:47 AM · #1 |
|
|
|
09/19/2011 04:30:11 AM · #2 |
| Good grief..... that little snap shot might make it to a 5.7 in the "from above" challenge. |
|
|
|
09/19/2011 07:08:33 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
09/19/2011 07:32:08 AM · #4 |
Obviously you just don't get it (nor do I).
Though, Steve beat you to the post a few months ago :-)
|
|
|
|
09/19/2011 08:42:42 PM · #5 |
Ugh.... I keep thinking about this stupid photo and getting angrier...
Think about how many people in the world don't know how to pay their rent for the next month or can't even afford a decent meal, and then you read something that like this.
I find this upsetting. |
|
|
|
09/19/2011 09:33:40 PM · #6 |
For some reason the first thread on this subject was replaced by this one.
I will repeat my comment from that thread:
As a long-time fan of Cindy Sherman and her work, I'd say it's worth every penny and I hope she got some of it.
Her 'body of work' is far more than the photography you see in the example given, (which after all is one of a series) but is, in its own way, represented by it.
For example, and perhaps one more easily understood, the ephemeral work of an artist you may have heard more about: Andy Goldworthy is mostly represented by his photography of his creations. But, "it's just a photograph?" Of course not. |
|
|
|
09/19/2011 10:15:15 PM · #7 |
|
|
|
09/19/2011 11:45:40 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
09/20/2011 02:24:02 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Article:
So what's so special about a photo of a girl on a tile floor? And what drives that unimaginable price? David Ross, former director of the Whitney and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, says that mainly, it's a function of two people wanting the same thing:
"What matters to most of those collectors is winning. When art becomes a competitive sport," Ross says on the phone, "all it takes to win is the guts and the money to go further than anyone else, and then, voila, you win. And winning feels really good." |
The price has nothing to do with the quality of the photo or even the value- except to him. This guy wanted it and he had a spare $3.8M to make sure he got it and nobody else did. He studied philosophy at the Charlie Sheen Academy. |
|
|
|
09/20/2011 04:54:53 AM · #10 |
The fact that somebody decided that this photograph was worth $3.8M to them doesn't make all the other photographs in the world worth any less. DPC ribbon winners are still worth exactly the same as before.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2011 05:03:35 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Ugh.... I keep thinking about this stupid photo and getting angrier...
Think about how many people in the world don't know how to pay their rent for the next month or can't even afford a decent meal, and then you read something that like this.
I find this upsetting. |
Capitalism sucks doesn't it. Just don't go reading about the morally reprehensible financial system or even watch James Cameron's $240mil slice of blue-skinned nonsense 'Avatar'. Your head may explode.
Personally i think the photograph is great, and i've contacted Cindy Sherman to tell her it would get a 9 from me, and i far prefer the rich to spend money on beautiful art than another handful of sports cars or sold gold egg whisks or whatever it is the rich spend their pocket money on.
Message edited by author 2011-09-20 05:04:49. |
|
|
|
09/20/2011 08:09:54 AM · #12 |
| I think it is a great portrait. |
|
|
|
09/20/2011 03:39:09 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Article:
So what's so special about a photo of a girl on a tile floor? And what drives that unimaginable price? David Ross, former director of the Whitney and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, says that mainly, it's a function of two people wanting the same thing:
"What matters to most of those collectors is winning. When art becomes a competitive sport," Ross says on the phone, "all it takes to win is the guts and the money to go further than anyone else, and then, voila, you win. And winning feels really good." |
The price has nothing to do with the quality of the photo or even the value- except to him. This guy wanted it and he had a spare $3.8M to make sure he got it and nobody else did. He studied philosophy at the Charlie Sheen Academy. |
winning |
|
|
|
09/21/2011 12:02:34 AM · #14 |
| What we're talking about here is called "Veblen economics." Essentially, for certain layers of the societal torte, the more an object costs the greater it's value. |
|
|
|
05/15/2013 12:17:23 AM · #15 |
| I don't know if this had already been posted but Cindy Shermans photo has been outpriced by this sale - 4.34 million dollar photo. |
|
|
|
05/15/2013 12:38:31 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Judi:
I don't know if this had already been posted but Cindy Shermans photo has been outpriced by this sale - 4.34 million dollar photo. |
That's a 3 from me. Give it some interesting blur or a lone tree and maybe it's a 5. ; ) |
|
|
|
05/15/2013 02:08:35 AM · #17 |
| It might be difficult to judge an image that is intended to be seen at 81 x 140 inches when seen at 400 pixels. Andreas Gursky work (like Cindy Sherman's) is big, very big. In a museum they are impressive, on line, they just look silly. |
|
|
|
05/15/2013 03:21:19 AM · #18 |
| Being a big fan of Gursky, I must say this is one of his least impressive works - even in full size. |
|
|
|
05/15/2013 03:56:46 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Judi:
I don't know if this had already been posted but Cindy Shermans photo has been outpriced by this sale - 4.34 million dollar photo. |
a nice read |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 07:35:41 AM EDT.
