BTW - FIRST !

I really truly don't understand what I just read. She does what? Who is she? Is that her in all the pictures? The part about paying > 3mil for a photo is beyond words. This.World. Is. Insane.

Typical celebrity chick, typical life-style, typical set-up for a downfall !! ...Enjoy while you can !!

Who is Cindy Sherman and why should we care???? Why is she the lead story on MSNBC? Let's see, we have wars, $5 / gallon gas, high unemployment, a huge deficit, crazy enemies trying to develop Nukes, Oh by the way a presidential election. This is why about half of America does not pay attention.

One word STUPID!

CharleyFarley - don't talk bad about the "job creators"

DOS LOCOS----announcing that you are first is as meaningless as this article and the pictures in it.

Well i wish i had that kind of money because i have so much i would not care about it ....lol....personally i would explore the world to find the best herb and blaze across the sky....taking notes and photos and write an amazing book on herbs....then i would sing "i would like to teach the world to sing...and keep it company".....then i would take a bunch of 20 random people to the superbowl, masters golf, kentucky derby, and summer olympics (not winter i hate cold)....

And there are photographers in the war zones risking their lives every day for just a hundred bucks per shot... simply amazing...

3mil for a photo is beyond words. This.World. Is. Insane.

charleyfarley,

the1%ers have those $'s and have plenty more to burn

Where is gas $5?

A photographer for the 1%.

Gary 420 - I was going to b!tch about the same thing - you beat me to it! Weve got urban guerilla warfare rife with human rights abuses going on in Syria, tensions between Israel and Iran, Greece under occupation by bankers, gas and food prices on the rise, an economy still on blocks while the stock market mysteriously rises, and THIS is the front page news? They should follow it up with an article discussing how THIS article is an example of the growing divide between rich and poor in this country, and how the rich have entirely no clue as to the suffering going on. They could care less as long as the wine keeps flowing, and they can spend 3.5 mil on a pic that looks like a teenage boy's picture of his girlfriend during the 1960s!

Messed - up.

It is a beautiful photo; but I never got how photos sell. Paintings are one of a kind, photos are made to duplicate. I can right click on this photo and make it my screen saver no problem. Is this person paying for the film?

#1.7 - meaningless...

Where is gas $5?

Here in Lexington KY gas is 4 bucks, I thihnk they are talking about the price we will be paying this summer which is projected at 5 bucks national averge.

I know! Its not even a real tile floor...

And she is not even naked!

Both Barnum and Ron White are correct. This story is proof!

So do you always want all of the crap in your face when it comes to news? This story is off the beaten path and if you were into photography and art it would interest you. Besides, if you had the opportunity to make millions you can't tell me you wouldn't take it?

I was an art student in the 80's when Cindy Sherman came on to the scene. It was a novel idea at the time, but I agree with some that $3 million is a stupid waste of money - elitist - as most art is, and available only to the 1% who can pay for it. it's a luxury "investment".

But think about sports. These guys are WAY overpaid, make even more than an artist, don't provide anything other than entertainment and yet MSNBC puts sports "news" front and center all the time. Sports isn't any more important than art.

I'd like to think it was sold thru some charity event, but no it wasn't.

The story of the rich

I was an art student in the 80's when Cindy Sherman came on to the scene. It was a novel idea at the time, but I agree with some that $3 million is a stupid waste of money - elitist - as most art is, and available only to the 1% who can pay for it. it's a luxury "investment".

But think about sports. These guys are WAY overpaid, make even more than an artist, don't provide anything other than entertainment and yet MSNBC puts sports "news" front and center all the time. Sports isn't any more important than art.

Inspiring how?

Hey Lois how much you want for the photo of you, husband kid and dog ? Its brilliant.

The trick is getting someone to pay you for them.

If she is imitating something in all her pictures what exactly is this imitation in the 3.9 million dollar photo? There are people that are homeless and starving all over the world and someone ponies up this kind of bread for what looks like a standard snapshot. Nothing even remotely special about it.

If I understand the story correctly she likes to play dress up and take pictures of herself and somehow that is fine art.

The pictures are as vague as the article.

It's a different world. That is the bubble where the rest of us are out of sight and out of mind which means the problems we see really don't exist in that part of the world.

That's why reputations are so carefully cultivated in the world of art; it's to get 1%'s money. The only difference between a $500 image and a $4 Million dollar image is the prestige value of the person who is behind the camera who I never heard of until today. She marketed herself very well and now she could be falling down drunk and shoot a image of a toilet as it was flushing and get 3.5 Million. The rest of us would post it to Facebook just to get a laugh.

Yes, how horrid that someone who doesn't meet your high standards of beauty have the nerve to leave her closet when she obviously should be kept in a darkened room, separated from society so can avoid being traumatized by the sight of her.

Almost every comment on here is shallow, self-serving, and nauseating. Is this really all you people do all day is sit on here and bitch about everything you don't like? I didn't realize Grandpa Simpson had his own internet connection.

I think the response to this would be, "We don't needs no stinking commie culture stuff. We gots us some gun and we likes ta use 'em on the arty farty smarty types."

The more I read comments on these boards, the more I think I need to get the hell out of this country, since ignorance seems to be the latest--and seemingly one--thing we "celebrate" anymore.

Voiceontheleft Ill pass the hat so you can leave seeing how your so far above us. I would not want you to fall off your pedestal and hurt your self

...your going to have to search a while to find the kind of country where the people think this photography is anything special.....good luck with your move.....

Boy, freedom_monger really got you voiceontheleft. Be careful. People will protect their right to stupidity at any cost, and I mean any cost. Adding to their stupidity is no problem and actually probably a preferred method of protecting it.

Wow, I can't believe the hatred of people. She's a photographer, for heaven's sake, producing social commentary in a truly unique way, and I see absolutely no reason to condemn her for it. Nobody is forcing anyone to look at her work or purchase it, so what exactly is your beef???

I'd say the beef is that this article is the main headline on a news site.

Really, someone enlighten me. What is she saying in these photos? Or just take one, the $3.8 million one. What is the statement? What is it trying to change about the world?

Or continue with random "I hate American idiots" posts, whichever you find easier.

WHats the beef, rkaralius??? Go read some history books and find out! When a critical mass of a society's people are struggling, having it thrown in their face with this kind of conspicuous consumption - on a SNAP SHOT - P!SSES THE MASSES OFF!!

People who earn 10 bucks an hour, and work hard all their lives - and see this one snapshot has more value than all of the time they spent hunched over a desk.. yeah, that tends to upset people.

Now if there were some real aesthetic value here - A vast canvas of painstaking oil strokes that took a great deal of time - people understand that. But this? No - this is just obscene conspicuous consumption.

And I studied art history.

I never accepted the modern art movement. The sensitive artistes of the world can lecture in a dark room over slides until hell freezes over, and I will never accept the likes of Jackson Pollack's thrown paint, and Warhol's soup can as being earth shattering works of art that should command a king's ransom.

I despise avant garde twittery.

Strength in numbers, if you despise something, then don't buy it. Do you really have a problem with people exercising their freedom to spend their time - and their money - as they choose? I'll never make the kind of money that snapshot fetched either, and frankly I couldn't care less. I also don't believe for one minute that that money would have been spent on social programs if it hadn't been for that dastardly photograph. Would you like some kind of law passed prohibiting people from making money from art you don't like? What kind of country would that be??? I don't think I'd want to live there.

Voice... it is sort of dumb to defend art that sucks... but what's funny is that the artist probably reads these comments and thinks she's done her job by evoking strong feelings.

And I studied art history.

If you studied art history, you'd realize that art has nothing to do with how well the strokes are made or how realistic it is. First of all "modern art" is a term that can encompass the last 120+ years of art...not just Pollock and Warhol...so if you dismiss it, you're pretty much dismissing all 20th century artists, all cultural development from the arts of that period,and some of the most influential pieces of work of all time.

The fact that you don't accept it doesn't change the fact that the entire world was irreversibly influenced by it.

What an intriguing, avant garde, masterpiece. No wonder it was worth $3.8M. Now I have something I've been keeping safely locked up that I'm sure only the most discerning of you collectors would be interested in. But don't tell your friends. If three of them have heard of it, it's already yesterday's news. It's a small cat turd I've been polishing to a fine hue with reclaimed baby seal tears. I couldn't possibly part with it for less than $5M though. It tortures my soul to sell it, but if you promise to love it as I have, then you may buy it.

rkaralius & marionc23-

Well, I was going to write long rebuttals about both of your ridiculous assumptions and if-then logic concerning what I think should be done about it (and rkaralius, nothing should be done about it, because this period will reflect the history during this time, thousands of years from now, and I suspect it will be seen as a nadir in human culture).

Then I decided to let Gordon Gekko sum it up from this Wall Street movie quote:

While pointing to Miro's Paysage: Gordon to Bud Foxx - "This painting here. I bought it ten years ago for $60 000. I could sell it today for $600 000. The illusion has become real and the more real it becomes the more desperate they want it. Capitalism at it's finest."

What did Gekko mean by "the illusion"... think about it.

Watch the movie Wall Street - Oliver Stone has a running background commentary about the state of art today, and it is a scathing one, and exactly the point I am trying to make here.

Art has been subsumed as a status symbol, as a crass display of wealth, as little more than a commodity to be traded.

What "scam?" She takes pictures, and apparently there are buyers who are drawn to purchase them. I'm failing to see the "scam" in this.

voiceontheleft, I have a nice photo of my car. You can have it cheap only $1000 dollars.

your right stupidity is not a scam.

@voice, and apparently people are willing to buy magazines and watch the Kardashians. So that's art? More to the point, that's worth a front page spot on MSNBC?

If you're so up in arms about the headlines on this site, then either find another site or apply for an editorship. It's not like there aren't plenty of news outlets for you to go shop at. I'm so tired of logging on and reading people bitch and moan that the site isn't exactly what THEY want it to be. Go start your own site if that's so important to you.

I thought it was an interesting story, and I think her work is interesting. Not to the point that i would pay that much money for it, but interesting. Even if I didn't like it though, I wouldn't sit here bitching that no one should buy it and she's running a "scam." If you don't like it, don't buy it--no one was coerced. Prices associated with art seem relatively random anyway.

As far as it being "headline" material, ever once in awhile it's nice to get online and not see the front page be loaded with the latest round of crap from the most recent GOP circle jerk.

What makes Picasso a genius ? What is in his art work that is so great ?

....your first impression as a child was the correct one......you got lost on the way......

I've not lost my way nearly as much as the culture-less nation we are fast becoming. As with all great civilizations, the cultures flourished. If these comments are any indication, we are indeed a nation in decline.

I hear Leroy Neiman has a retrospective coming up. Enjoy!

....yeah, because Leroy Neiman isn't a "real" artist like Cindy Sherman, right?.....

Now you're getting it!

Picasso basically showed that art wasn't reality. Creating the possibility for modern art in all it's forms to exist. In a sense, he opened a door to our world which had never been seen before, let alone walked through. His work literally CHANGED the culture of art, world history, what art can do, and how people look at the world around them.

If you don't like Picasso's work for aesthetic reasons, that's fine. I don't like it all either. But to dismiss the theory behind it and it's effect on the culture of the entire human race is equivalent to, say, disagreeing with evolution and then saying nothing important has been learned from the theory...it's just factually incorrect.

Even if you go so far as to say that you think Picasso's worthless, you can't discount the real, visual effects of what he did and how it drastically changed the way people look at the world around them.

Spot on Marionc

Unfortunately it's hard to say which modern artists are really transforming art in such fundamental ways.... even in secondary or tertiary ways.

I hate to say it, but some artists deserve to starve. A great deal of the stuff in MoMA is art only by virtue of the name on the museum... made worse when subjected to the pretentiousness of listening to artists tell me what the art should "mean".

True art can only be known through the prism of time. I don't think the light-bulb I saw in MoMA that turned on and off while breathlessly announcing its new state is going to cut it in the long term.

extremely true Mark. In fact, even in this case, the fact that she is famous and has sold work for millions doesn't prove it's great art...making art in and of itself is not some divine voyage for which people should praise you. It's the same as going on a jog. Being an "artist" does not make you better than anyone else...and just making art is not justification for being arrogant, famous, noticed, or even respected. You need to earn it like in any other profession

We need to stop looking at art like it's some holy gold icon on a pedestal and see it as simply what it is; A creation from an idea of a person. There's no reason to get upset if you don't like what's considered famous or good. You don't have to feel like you've failed if you don't understand a piece. It's all opinion...and some of it changes the world.

Arts kind of like politics in that way. Some politicians get famous for being good, some get famous for having one big thing happen. Some get famous by cheating...and some actually end up changing the world for the better....but what you shouldn't do is completely dismiss someone because you don't understand what they are doing, especially if you don't have the necessary information to make an informed opinion.

You know, that's great you list Picasso and seeing some of his work as crap when you were a kid, until you were properly "enlightened" (programmed) to appreciate it. Now I've seen some of Picasso's work that clearly shows he had great imagination and mastery, but even he grew disgusted with how he could turn out rubbish and all these self-professed art aficionados would scarf it up like champagne and caviar at a gallery opening.

Art is fun, neat, thought provoking, and draws our emotions. Money is our way of trading for goods, services, and real or perceived value. No shame in wanting to support oneself by sharing/selling art. Nothing wrong with paying to bring some of that art into your life. But you really have to be detached from humankind and existence on planet Earth to justify paying that much for a picture.

I like art... I read the article hoping to find something interesting. Her art doesn't speak to me pretty much at all.

I like art... I read the article hoping to find something interesting. Her art doesn't speak to me pretty much at all.

And there ya go...That's an appropriate response...not "That's not art, I could do that, all she did was snap a photo" because I assure all of you, despite your pride and confidence...you couldn't. and even if you did make a similar image, you didn't do it first, you didn't think of it originally, you haven't done it, and you don't have the insight into the reasons for the imagery that she has.

You can dislike art without sounding absolutely intolerant. I don't find much in it either, but that doesn't make it worthless.

"is this really "art"?" -- Yes, it is art and no, you could not go out and paint or photograph just anything and become famous. All you are really doing is displaying your deep ignorance of what art is or what interests artists.

Hows your collection of Thomas Kinkade prints doing?

....probably more interested in paying bills, gettin' a new fridge, avoiding being robbed or murdered, you know important stuff.

BTW- are those pictures of strange drag queens or actual women making themselves look like possible drag queens? Seriously, I'm not sure one way or the other.

"probably more interested in paying bills" -- I am also very poor but I can appreciate fine art. Studies have PROVED that a vibrant art culture has economic benefits to the larger community so maybe if certain people learned to expand their minds they wouldn't be such narrow, petty, grasping little men and would in fact benefit economically from a good liberal education.

"are those pictures of strange drag queens" - No, those are pictures of Cindy making a visual commentary on historical paintings using the visual language that all artists learn. I'm sorry that your school failed to educate you in how to look at and understand art but that doesn't invalidate what artists do.