Cindy Sherman just lost her record

Can you imagine the negative critiques that would've went out had she posted this pic here for review
lol.gif
 
Anyone have emails of the bidders? :) I got plenty of pics for lots less, lololololol! Heck I'd be happy with $10 and some cheetohs, roflmao.
 
Nothing in the article explains why the high price of this particular photo while he sells his prints for $5-700,000 the last I heard. But that is the art market... mysterious.

Anyway, I'm glad for him and we need more photog like him to get the prices up for everyone else. :lol:
 
Yeah, but do the artists themselves get this earning?

You know, millions for an original Picaso painting, but he didn't get a dime. IMO it's a shame that art works become nothing more than a piece of investment property.
 
As one poster commented yesterday in another thread about this new auction high---this high-end art market pricing is an example of the uber-wealthy "investing" in artwork which will most likely,appreciate substantially in value. THe ultra-wealthy have been shown to invest a large percentage of their discretionary income into high-end art objects because for the most part, the items are more or less recession-proof, and tend to appreciate substantially in value. The appreciation values on "ultra high-end" art are just crazy outta' this world, sometimes doubling or trebling within less than a decade. So when Mr. Richey-Rich goes to sell this $4.3 million photo, chances are very good that there will be a rich industrialist, Hollywood actor, or Wall Street banker who'll shell out $7.2 million for the rights to own this "work".
 
The uber rich have homes big enough to have walls long enough to hang the 12 foot wide x 6 foot long (73 x 143 in) photograph print that was sold.

According to Christie's it is a backed, chromogenic print, face-mounted on plexiglass. A large measure of the works value is that it is signed by the photographer, and the photographer has a very respected world-wide reputation.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but do the artists themselves get this earning?

You know, millions for an original Picaso painting, but he didn't get a dime. IMO it's a shame that art works become nothing more than a piece of investment property.

In the case of this sale, the artist doesn't get a dime since the piece wasn't his anymore but it will certainly not hurt his own sales.

And Picasso may not have gotten every penny from every sale of his works but he sure as hell wasn't poor.

Few collectors buy only for the investment but even if they did, I wouldn't mind because they allow some artists to live and keep on working. Not only that but not all collectors are rich. If you've never seen it, watch a movie called "Herb & Dorothy" about a couple that donated one of the largest collection of contemporary art to the National Gallery of Art. The collection was so big that the museum only accepted half of it... Yet, she was a librarian and he was a mailman or something like that.

What KmH says about space though is very true though. Some of my paintings I can't even display in my house because they are too darn big :lol:
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top