I don't know- photography as art is still subjective to me- a landscape photograph to me would be considered more art than a weirdly processed strange portrait, as in the style of Cindy Sherman.

Perhaps I am used to seeing landscape photographs, but portraiture, especially the way Cindy Sherman makes it really does not appeal to me at all.

Gareth said:
exit through the gift shop.

Just make sure you buy one of MY prints as you go....

LOL!!!

exit through the gift shop.

sevencrossing said:
A Portrait Billy the Kid has just sold for $2.3m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13919013
I think I might up my portrait rate

LOL!

Ade Barkah (above) gave a very good summary of WHY these things sell of huge numbers...

Art isn't the mount or the technique or the composition.. its what the artist says it is.

If its a blurred picture of a stray cat and I say its art and I charge $1100 for it, then it's art.

A Portrait Billy the Kid has just sold for $2.3m

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13919013
I think I might up my portrait rate

Photography isn't art. Canvas isn't art. Oil , chalk and watercolor aren't art.

I don't mean to be factitious: today many (if not most) photographs are NOT sold at auction as "art". A signed class picture from Marilyn Monroe's middle-school years has little artistic value but is worth north of $20,000. This summer, Christie's plans to auction pictures of the Beatles -- taken during their first U.S. concert -- estimated to be worth $100,000. And last month a daguerreotype of the politician John C. Calhoun sold at Sotherby's for over $330,000.

These pictures command prices through some combination rarity and historical value. Whether or not they are "artistic" in nature is of secondary importance.

Clearly these pictures differ significantly from art pieces created using photography as a technique, either in part or in entirety. The idea of photographs as accepted "works of art" is nothing new. John Edwin Mayall held his first serious photographic art exhibit nearly 160 years ago.

The fact that contemporary art photographs today may sell over the $1 million dollar mark is a red herring. It means little since works of art of ANY medium are fetching such astronomic prices. Twenty years ago we could have used $100,000 as a benchmark for any medium. The question is, have the relative importance or value of fine art photography risen in comparison to other forms of art?

Consider: that $38.4 million Warhol was worth $1,600 when it was commissioned in the mid-1960s (his iconic Campbell Soup Can painting was going for $1,500). Yet over a century ago, way back in 1898, Alfred Stieglitz was already selling his fine print photographs for $75, an enormous sum at that time for any kind of artwork. Incidentally, $75 in 1898 is equivalent to around $1,100 in 1964 dollars, a comparable amount to Warhol's earnings at his time.

In 20 years from now when history is written, at what points in time will people look at that mark the beginning of photography becoming "works of art" going for multi-millions? That is a shift in desire for photography in a major way. Comparing it to very rare works of accepted traditional art just works to diminish photography as a Fine art medium.

I didn't say it surpassed the rare works of the artists or other "fine art" artists nor was I making that point at all. Most of the artists works rarely go for that high and are usually the very rare, popular, and very large works that do. At a Sotherby's auction an Ansel Adams went above $750,000 for a very recognizable print, but most all were $5-50k. Most fine art photos went for below 10k. One can easily find Picasso's & Warhol's works for under $15k and many far less than a D3x.

Let's not get too carried away... :-)

At the same auction Cindy Sherman's photograph sold for $3.9 million, a Warhol acrylic and silkscreen self-portrait sold for $38.4 million. Also, a Mark Rothko painting sold for $33.7 million, and a second Warhol portrait sold for $27.5 million.

That's almost $100 million for a couple Warhols and a Rothko. In comparison, $3.9 million for a well-known Sherman "almost" feels like a bargain.

I think most are missing the major break with the past and the acceptance of photography as a "REAL" fine art that (now) DOES demand the prices ($1 mil+) that was only heard of from traditional artists.

Both each went for many times more than almost every Warhol, Miro, and most Picasso drawings that are out there for sale now. These are not photos of a singular significant event, but created and intended to be Art. Oh and they are COLOR!

This is not intended to suggest photography is not fine art (I'm almost certain all of us would agree it certainly can be and is) but in many art snobbery circles photographic images are still not regarded in the same status as traditional paint, sculpture, etching etc. More common are the circles where B&W silver hydride are the only "Fine Art" suitable for photography. The recent breaks from this past are huge and I do believe will be noted in the future as one of the markers for a fundamental shift in the art world and the final acceptance of photography into it.

Think of it in this way - at a Art dealer in NY, right now you can buy their entire holdings of original art (35 items in all) from Warhol, Miro, and Picasso for less than $1.5 million. Think of that for a moment.

Prices be damned - I'm happy for the artists - who are still living by the way.

Darn I missed the bidding because my chauffeur left in the Bentley with my cell phone in it. I might have another chance next time it goes on sale.

there is a lot to art that i dont get

but i suppose that the buyers are hoping the values will increase; they usually do.

I guess you just wouldn't think someone would go through the trouble of manipulating supermarket aisles. I'd actually rather see the shelves normally shot, with product out of place.

I guess you shouldn't have paid $3.34 Million for it then huh? :^)

Photoshop has been around a very long time.

US President Abraham Lincoln's head (left)on another person's body. Created in the year 1860 by a bored Photoshop user ;^)

He did a good job though, because at first glance, you don't notice the digital add ons. Maybe it's because I first saw the photo about 10 years ago, back when digital manipulation wasn't as widely used. I assumed it was shot normally.

Nope not just tweaked. Have you ever seen a 99cent store's shelves look that perfect?

...As soon as the technique is available, Gursky proceeds to the digital manipulation of the image.

- Stefan Beyst, lecturer philosophy of art and history of modern art

NSXType-R said:
We have another sucker who paid too much for a photo!

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/05/cindy-sherman-print-sells-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp

Seriously- what's so special about this shot?

I never understood art.

Sold for 3.9 mil.

I like the linoleum floor she's lying on. I swear every house in the 80's had a linoleum pattern like this one in their kitchen.

I actually like those supermarket aisle shots by Gursky. Where does it say they were photoshopped? He may have tweaked them now, but the originals were shot on film.

:^) Sorry aetas. I've updated my NSFW warning to include the clown outfit, lol.

The clown photo around 2:00 has gave me a new fear of clowns. Thanks niko. Im telling my daughter to complain to you when we cant go to the fair because dads having panic attacks again.

Well I meant she took pictures of herself, hence the use of the word self-portrait. However Ade is correct in that she creates elaborate narratives of various characters using herself as the "model".

Not Safe For Work (Exposed Boobies & Sexually Explicit Doll Poses & Freakish Clown Outfit)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMpA1i_vWiQ&feature=related

Cindy Sherman used herself as the model in the majority of her photographs. They are not, however, self-portraits: the photographs aren't about her -- but meticulous constructions of the ideas she explores.

This picture is one of a series of photographs early in her career commissioned by an art magazine. She made a dozen pictures -- all very different from each other, each painstakingly created -- playing on the idea of men's magazine "centerfolds".

Back then, the fact that she dressed herself as an adolescent in a suggestive yet sexually ambiguous pose was controversial. When we think of a "centerfold" we expect to see a "playmate" but instead we're confronted by an innocent teen lost in her reverie. Imagine opening an issue of Playboy to find this picture as the centerfold. One might feel guilty looking at this image, and the other pictures in the series.

The art magazine which commissioned these images elected not to publish them at the end. The editor was afraid the suggestive series could be interpreted "the wrong way".

Today we might ask "what's the big deal?" but Cindy Sherman pushed the boundaries about the role of women in society at the time.

NikoDoby said:
Cindy Sherman's self-portraits are very valuable. A collector really wanted this photo badly. At least it's not photo chopped :^)

That's a self portrait? I thought that was a kid there.

As important as she might think she is, I still don't think it's art. (Very subjective, I know.)

Cindy Sherman's self-portraits are very valuable. A collector really wanted this photo badly. At least it's not photo chopped :^)

We have another sucker who paid too much for a photo!

http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/05/cindy-sherman-print-sells-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp

Seriously- what's so special about this shot?

I never understood art.

Sold for 3.9 mil.

haha Kyoshinikon good call!

The camera he shot it with is probably worth more than everything combined in the scene!