MicrostockGroup

LOL!  No accounting for taste.  Maybe the name Cindy Sherman was enough to pull in that kind of money?  I've never heard of her, but I am not much for fine art photography.

I think some people here are exaggerating. Cindy Sherman together with Sally Mann / Mary Ellen Mark and Nan Goldin are among the few living legends of female photography. They have been around for years each doing her own thing not caring for immediate cash-in like we do (stock photographers). I'm sure that for years Cindy Sherman photographed herself and Nan Goldin her outcast friends without expecting any money. So after years of producing a consistant non-commercial body of work which evolves around the same subjects, with a personal artistic style, their work has high value - not of course to buy and use the photo commercialy on a website (like stock photos) but as a work of art - like a painting.

The work of a photographer of this class is to be viewed as a whole a single photo cannot give you the general idea of the subject etc that's why they all publish monographs which usually have a single subject each time, not just random nice photos. These women really are living legends of female photography and have influenced A LOT of photographers and because they are still living it is their time to cash-in.

One way to go is sell commercial photography and cash in immediately and another is to wait for years keep only 10% of your work and try to be an artist with a personal style and subject in your photos and maybe when you are old or if you are lucky and good enough your work will be recognized at some point and you make big money.

Also let's not forget that all this reviewing at the stock sites is not to be taken so seriously that it influences our photography in a bad way. If you want to shoot a photo that will have a lot of noise or shoot against the sun lens flare etc it might not be accepted but it doesn't mean that you as a photographer should be limited by that.

I don't like the photo much, it's nothing special but I am pleased to see any photographer making that sort of money.  Photography has had a hard time with the art world, the more photos that sell for these prices the better.  When anyone asks why we charge so much for a $100 photo, just show them this.

I'f I would have taken this photo, nobody would give a rats ass about it, I would proly need to donate it since nobody would buy it.
People dont elude yourselves, it only has value because of the photographers name.

Looks like we are coming out of the recession. It must be cool to be rich again, and the best way to demonstrate it is by spending your filthy lucre on worthless cr*p.
Look at the Turner prize as a guide to taste, recession kicks in, suddenly better (real?) artwork starts winning. Markets boom, people want to demonstrate just how wealthy they are by burning cash on piles of doo doo (sometimes literally)

art collectors buy art for many reasons. an art dealer may purchase a work as an investment only without any regard for its artistic value. then there are those who are megalomaniacs and simply want to say they own "X" by "the artist". and some are genuinely in love with the work.

of course I'm projecting my experiences and feelings into the photograph. that's precisely what art can and IMO should evoke. art is and always will be subjective. the meaning and value is always projected into it. it's not inherent or scientific.

though I obviously don't agree, I applaud you saying it. not everyone can produce art and not everyone sees art in art. that's the beauty of it.

Many great artists use photography as a tool, no different to a paintbrush.  Some have even used camera obscuras or just painted over photos.  I really don't see why any one form of art should be thought of as superior to another.

I'll try to explain why this photo is good and why it is worth (big) money.

Compositional Aspect: The composition becomes conceptual by the blending of the subject with the surroundings. This is a favorite subject explored by many other classical photographers. The way the skirt blends with the texture and shape of the tiles and the way the blushed face matches the color of the floor. On the contrary to what we would do in stock photography which is to try and make the subject pop-out here the key is blending in. Again there is a sort of mystery like an old film to all her work and a strong body of work is more important than a single great photo.

Artistic background: Of course she is not a random photographer and her name gives value to the work - there's no denying that. Of course the hype around the name and vanity of the collector wanting to own but usually just invest in art raises the prices. Apart from that though she is one of the names considered as an influence to what became known as "heroin-chic" during the 90s in fashion photography (actually they copied her style) and was around in the 80s to be part of the no-wave and "cinema of transgression".

Like Sharpshot said whether someone likes her work or not we should be pleased that a photographer is making this sort of money. It's hard for an artist to be starving for decades - (slapping and rubbing his face to make it blend with the floor for a selfportrait) - and few are those that are finally recognized and cash-in while alive.

About the point made that microstock photographers wouldn't get accepted in the art crowd - i must agree to this at least for all the work submitted as stock and all similar series. However for example there are musicians who do music for commercials for a living (like we do stock) and still produce their own music (art).

Edit: I just saw on the other thread that this was commissioned work for a magazine that didn't get accepted. If it had been used commercially and printed in the magazine i'm pretty sure that it wouldn't sell at this price today so this i think solidifies Badricks point about stock or commercial work being excluded or devalued in the art market.