The most expensive photo

[Tuffdisc]

You got the goods, I got the money, honey. Let's see 'em.

First the money then the goods, it is £600 per photo

 

[freakofnature]

First the money then the goods, it is £600 per photo

What's your address?

 

[Tuffdisc]

What's your address?

Not going to give it to you

 

[freakofnature]

Not going to give it to you

Well that's nice. What do you want me to do? Just throw my money into the east wind and hope it gets to you? :willy_nilly:

 

[Tuffdisc]

Well that's nice. What do you want me to do? Just throw my money into the east wind and hope it gets to you? :willy_nilly:

Well have a guess, since I don't want to give out personal details to you, the only synopsis is that I am not going to post photos. NEVER

 

[freakofnature]

Well have a guess, since I don't want to give out personal details to you, the only synopsis is that I am not going to post photos. NEVER

 

[itsmeJonB]

I love cindy sherman. anyhow, the responses to this thread are as I expected, people who know shit about art getting very opinionated about art.

The photograph is shit

 

[Maldoror]

The photograph is shit

case in point.

 

[Pet Sounds]

I love cindy sherman. anyhow, the responses to this thread are as I expected, people who know shit about art getting very opinionated about art.

Oh, I'm sorry, is there some objective measure of art? It's a matter of opinion, not an actual area of expertise. Get over yourself. It sucks btw and I would be embarrased to pay for it.

 

[Abcinthia]

I like this quote from the article.

Then what's so special about Cindy Sherman? Is she dead? No. Has she stopped making art? No. Is this a landmark event — considering the feminist underpinnings of her work, or the fact that she's a woman? Not really.

"We're living in a world of funny money," says Ross. "And money is not really a measure of anything anymore because ... it's thrown around in such unpredictable ways."

I wouldn't pay that amount for any photograph. A painting by a great painter, is a different matter.

 

[Siphorous]

A photograph is always subjective. Take the photography contests (not just the latest one) we have here. People have their own tastes and not everything will appeal to everyone - and that photograph doesn't appeal to me. Paintings are different though.

As has been said already, to some of these - it becomes more a case of who is going to go the distance and pay what's needed to 'win' the contest for the pic rather than the pic itself.

 

[Maldoror]

Oh, I'm sorry, is there some objective measure of art? It's a matter of opinion, not an actual area of expertise. Get over yourself. It sucks btw and I would be embarrased to pay for it.

there is a qualitative measure to art, and it's objective in some ways and subjective in others, but you gotta be interested in it in order to appreciate it, which is why I'm baffled by people that have absolutely no interest in art and have no ability to appreciate it always forcefully voicing their ignorant opinions.

 

[Maldoror]

A photograph is always subjective. Take the photography contests (not just the latest one) we have here. People have their own tastes and not everything will appeal to everyone - and that photograph doesn't appeal to me. Paintings are different though.

As has been said already, to some of these - it becomes more a case of who is going to go the distance and pay what's needed to 'win' the contest for the pic rather than the pic itself.

it's completely subjective to those that aren't immersed in it. that's why you find that most people would prefer a crappy paysage painting to hang in their living room over a picasso masterpiece.

 

[Zorak]

Art has been so dehumanised it has almost no place except among the pretentious elite. José Ortega more or less said that.

 

[Maldoror]

wrong, the world has been so dehumanized people can no longer appreciate art. there's more art than ever in our current society, but very few to appreciate it. this thread proves it.

 

[Zorak]

You enjoy your superiority if it makes you happy.

 

[itsmeJonB]

there is a qualitative measure to art, and it's objective in some ways and subjective in others, but you gotta be interested in it in order to appreciate it, which is why I'm baffled by people that have absolutely no interest in art and have no ability to appreciate it always forcefully voicing their ignorant opinions.

Here I thought only video gamers could be fanboys

 

[Pet Sounds]

wrong, the world has been so dehumanized people can no longer appreciate art. there's more art than ever in our current society, but very few to appreciate it. this thread proves it.

Seriously, what emotion or feeling does that photo invoke in you? Does it honestly inspire you? What could it possibly stir in anyone? Does it really make you think? Make you feel? This isn't War and Peace. This is a 13 year old girl's MySpace pose.

 

[Tuffdisc]

Seriously, what emotion or feeling does that photo invoke in you? Does it honestly inspire you? What could it possibly stir in anyone? Does it really make you think? Make you feel? This isn't War and Peace. This is a 13 year old girl's MySpace pose.

It inspired someone to buy it for nearly $4m, you have to remember this, it wasn't sitting in a shop window, it was in an auction

 

[Pet Sounds]

It inspired someone to buy it for nearly $4m, you have to remember this, it wasn't sitting in a shop window, it was in an auction

I'm not sure what your point is.

Jersey Shore inspires tens of millions to watch every week and has made more money than that photo ever will. And I would ask those people the same question I am asking here. What? Why? I guess reality show ignoramuses like myself would wouldn't appreciate or understand though.