What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
43 Comments
- Innuendo24, on 07/08/2009, -0/+14I love #6...
1.) Buy Camera
2.) Take pictures of other peoples *****
3.) ???
4.) PROFIT - bigthree, on 07/08/2009, -1/+12Ansel Adams is just amazing
- numberneal, on 07/08/2009, -2/+12don't forget that michael jackson death shot for which OK! mag paid $500k
- travcm, on 07/08/2009, -0/+8Buried for inaccurate title. These are not the "10 most expensive photographs".
- yuanzhoulu, on 07/08/2009, -3/+11imho these photos aren't *that* special compared to a lot of extremely creative compositions i've seen.
i think this has more to do with "sometimes you're the right person and you're already famous". it's like if Leonardo da Vinci painted a boring black square on a sheet of paper, it'd be worth a million dollars just because it was him that did it.
i mean, don't get me wrong, i acknowledge that these famous artists did do a lot of great work. but it's annoying that their less great pieces also become valuable. - DrCraigis, on 07/08/2009, -0/+7The Gursky pieces (#2) are visually striking because they are huge (10ft x 6ft roughly) vibrant color prints. I wouldn't mind hanging them in my apartment but they are definitely not worth $3.3M, especially for a contemporary photographer. That said, I doubt the average photographer can head down to the neighborhood market—as the article playfully suggests—and recreate the shot. There is something to be said for the skill of the photographer, and it's more than just having access to a large format camera and super-large printing capability.
- Cattista, on 07/09/2009, -0/+4Only $280 million:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d ... - joshuaer, on 07/08/2009, -0/+4any one can sit down and learn to paint, any one can sit at a computer and make a 3-d animation that would blow disney away as well. The point is these people did it.
- lensman00, on 07/08/2009, -0/+4Cindy Sherman's "Untitled 92" sold for $2.1 million in 2007. Makes me wonder what else should be on this list but isn't.
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/05/ ... - ksgant, on 07/08/2009, -0/+4I think this is more for art photos being sold at auction, not some tabloid paying a paparazzi.
I doubt you'll see the Suri Cruise baby snapshot up for auction...and if so I doubt seriously it would go for 2 mil. - AdHaR, on 07/09/2009, -1/+5"you're"
- MrZaiko, on 07/08/2009, -0/+4You cant even click on these pictures...
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -0/+4today? $1m 3 years? $9.95
- bdbr, on 07/08/2009, -0/+3Many of these have historical significance - some of them are 100 to 150 years old. The reason you think "most art is *****" is probably because not all art is completely pleasing by today's standards, but it may still be significant in a historical perspective.
- bdbr, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2Maybe "10 most expensive photographs that the author knows of"?
- quadrant6, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2I really don't see why #2 was worth over $3m...
- Astark, on 07/08/2009, -1/+3Suri Cruise baby snapshot: $2,000,000
- junaeroplane, on 07/09/2009, -0/+2you have to remember that photography is a very young medium, perhaps at the time these pictures were taken they showed a side of composition that we don't appreciate as much today.
but i do agree with what you're saying about the fame aspect. once a hit, always a hit. - LadyZoots, on 07/08/2009, -0/+2Keep in mind that these were sold at those prices after the photographers became famous. These weren't their first sales. People want the art because of who the artist is.
- RonADiSH, on 07/08/2009, -4/+6Rich idiots
- taox, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1Regardless of what everyone may think of his 99 cent diptychon, Andreas Gursky really has some amazing work.
- Iveestyle, on 07/08/2009, -4/+5This is neat! Sometimes your in the right place at the right time!
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1He's a hack of the highest order, but a good scammer, so you know, a postmodern artist.
- WilD9, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1Richard Prince makes me want to punch someone in the gooch.
- enantiodromia, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1no "Mission Accomplished" photo? certainly that cost a bit more than than the others.
- KillTheAcademy, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2don't forget princess Di had a pretty big price tag on her pics too.
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -1/+2It's one of those instances though were the buyers were buying the name and hype, not the work. That particular image sucks, it's only valuable because of the person who pressed the button.
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Why didn't they have higher resolution and photos for ALL of them?
- EMGroup, on 07/13/2009, -0/+1Wow....that last one is awesome. I love chance pictures. Then again, a lot of really good landscape ones are good timing.
- junaeroplane, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1they're on QVC for 6.95+s&h.
- tinkafoo, on 07/08/2009, -0/+1And what do you have on your wall? Speak up, we're listening.
- cosmicr, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1http://www.ratemypoo.com ???
- DulcetTone, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Shopped.
- deathcapt, on 07/09/2009, -0/+1Yeah, I was definitely thinking there would be more images of like space and *****. Like The first moon shots cost billions of dollars. Or some of the shots Hubble has taken.
- inactive, on 07/08/2009, -1/+1It's pretty simple really. It sucks because it sucks.
- steviaextract, on 07/08/2009, -2/+2why does it suck? does any art that is easily replicable suck? is art qualified simply on how hard it is to execute?
- m4ngo, on 07/08/2009, -1/+1I wonder how much a picture of Megan Fox's cooter would go for...
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -0/+0I have #10 at my house!
- ddhillon, on 07/08/2009, -1/+1Pictures/Art on my wall look way better than all of them..... seriously!
- quadrant6, on 07/08/2009, -3/+1And to think #8 could easily be done by HDR.
- macmcraeart, on 07/08/2009, -4/+1.... are cool.
- LomasLou, on 07/08/2009, -6/+0The Andreas Gursky photos are definitely shopped.
- evilmike916, on 07/08/2009, -11/+2Most art is *****!
ANYONE with a camera could take pictures that could rival these, except of course for the ones of the dead people. It doesn't take special talent to push a button.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 