woensdag, maart 16, 2005
Putting a price on photography
Is the price of a photograph the measure of its value? Hold that thought while you consider these record-setting figures. Last April, a signed Diane Arbus print of "Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey" sold at auction at Sotheby's for $478,400. During the autumn auctions at Christie's, "Memphis, c. 1970" by William Eggleston sold for $253,900, and "Calla Lily, 1986" by Robert Mapplethorpe sold for $242,700. For "brand name" photographers of later-20th century vintage, six-figure prices have ceased to be exceptional.
The art world, layered with prestige, the weight of history, serious scholarship and not a little pretense, has finally embraced photography, but the verdict is still out about the medium's position as an arriviste. Serious collectors of art are now seriously collecting photographs, but so are people with cash on their hands who view photography as just another status collectible. That status depends in part on the belief that these prices reflect some inherent worth, not just canny marketing. Do they?
Lees meer in de International Herald Tribune.
The art world, layered with prestige, the weight of history, serious scholarship and not a little pretense, has finally embraced photography, but the verdict is still out about the medium's position as an arriviste. Serious collectors of art are now seriously collecting photographs, but so are people with cash on their hands who view photography as just another status collectible. That status depends in part on the belief that these prices reflect some inherent worth, not just canny marketing. Do they?
Lees meer in de International Herald Tribune.
# posted by Jan-Edward : 13:06
|
|