Some details at T.O.P. I dunno that $3.89 million Cindy Sherman photo is looking better and better to me.
...Mike
Some details at T.O.P. I dunno that $3.89 million Cindy Sherman photo is looking better and better to me.
...Mike
Its a joke right?
Alas, no.Originally Posted by coops
*Sigh*
Mike
Politically, aerodynamically, and fashionably incorrect.
Tough room for contemporary photography!
This is great news. Soon my prints will sell for 10 mil each. HA!
Only $4.3M? What a piker. The real money is in painting.
I like the 99cent picture better.
Just posted the top ten photos on my blog. Hope the "plug" isn't innappropriate. Sort of enlightening what our culture has produced as its top photos, at least by the measure of auction sales.
--Darin
Cindy Sherman's photograph was 12" x 24." Gursky's is 6 feet x 12 feet. So on a square inch basis Sherman's was much more expensive.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
per sq inch! Love it!
6'x12' -- does one cut a hole in it for the door?That's a lot of wall space!
But I do like the image very much -- hard to image the presence of that large of an photograph. I'd love to see it displayed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks