And then one comes across news like this http://www.popphoto.com/news/2011/05/cindy-sherman-print-sells-39-million-auction-highest-ever-photograp. I know I mixing apples and oranges, but still, it makes sentences like the one in the subject pretty absurd

Here's a nice long thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1014&thread=38420223

Personally, I don't see much worth of any kind in that image.

I'm scratching my head as well about what is fine-art and how to enter the fine art business.

We all hear about these crazy multimillion dollars sales but as a matter of fact galleries are flooded by crap that has nothing to envy to the crap sold for crazy prices and yet they're worth nothing.

In the last few months i personally went on a tour of the major galleries in my city and frankly was unimpressed by what i've seen there, instead the shock was to realize how many bloody awful images were sold for thousands of dollars.

It's both a bubble and a mafia, as any art dealer will tell you there's no clear rule about how an artist can make a name in the market and then grow the value of its collection over time : both galleries and art critics must agree the specific artist can generate value and then the gallery bet on him organizing a sale etc but at the end of the game buyers and collectors have no linear logic on why they prefer artist x to artist y or z, moreover they only buy as an investment, with the hope that they can make a fat profit after a few years, and when the artist dies the value increase as it become something interesting for collectors too.

In most of the cases the quality of the images is absolutely non important, and often the most expensive shots are terrible, grainy, and look to be shot with a broken Polaroid !

Long story short, i'm carefully assembling a book to present to my local art galleries and at least gather up some feedback, time will tell.

Even a dog could take that shot with a mobile phone.
Conceptual my ass.

The frame is built from pure Platinum which is worth $4.5million - therefore it's a steal...

This kind of "fine art" is 95% about self-promotion.   You have to be a special kind of person to pull it off.

If she wrote a book on how to network "properly", I'd pay top dollar for that one.

Truly shows how to be a successful business person... 

It's a very good photo, it says something.  But 3 million? Come on people. 

The only thing it says to me is "look, I aint such a good photographer".
Then again I haven't sold any photos for over 700$ so what do I know...

though I'll say I like the photo in this example better than most of her other stuff.

Enough to pay $3.9 Mill. for it?

Interesting discussion.  I don't really find this photo interesting but I think it's an offbeat sort of portrait that captures something about being a child,  in a sort of retro orange-y glow.  I've never heard of Cindy Sherman.  

I always liked what Warhol did - when I was a kid it seemed very fresh and original.   The mind of the 'collector' though is something different.  The collector will pay a huge sum to own and display an original and imply a personal connection with the artist. We need rich patrons or there's no art.  But this price strikes me as way, way over the top. There just isn't that much content, craft or even effort in this photo.

Collectors are not crazy as it seems.
From what i have understood they're rich people willing to find an investment and eventually a profit.
They usually invest in many fields, including art and they don't stick just with photography.
Before buying someone they think twice and they ponder accurately if the artwork is worth or not.
If they bought this crap for 3 millions it means they "know" sooner or later they can resell it for 4 millions, that's the logic,
especially if the artist dies and you have a large collections of his works.

If I had that hanging on my wall I'd pay someone $20 to take it away and get rid of it.

(and someone forgot the "WB may be incorrect" rejection, too).

1+ and LOL

I'll need to add myself to the "Emperor has no clothes" camp. I totally don't get why that picture is worth anything other than to the model and her family and friends, and even then ... not a lot.
Which is clearly another reason why I'll never make it. 

Sadly, artistic success at a high level often (not always) depends on getting in with the right social circle and persuading the right people to promote you. It's a matter of social skills rather than artistic ones. Unfortunately, selling microstock is likely to be an instant disqualification from membership of the in-crowd.
There are some photographers whose work is just so marvellous that nobody could deny their greatness but they are a tiny minority which I'm afraid we are not a part of. A good percentage of them are social/news photographers and sell stock at places like Magnum. 

I had to click twice on that link. The first time I scanned the page quickly for the photograph that was being talked about. Not seeing it, I immediately jumped back to this thread to read on. I thought that photo was a pop up ad for some crummy teen clothing line!