Talk:List of most expensive photographs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creation[edit]

My intention was to just get this page started with as much information as I could gather from the Internet and then to pass this on to someone more informed. Is there a place on the Internet that keeps track of this? I couldn't find any - just found mention of high auctions on several different websites. CDA 19:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updates[edit]

Looking at this 2007 article on Artnet, they mention a Cindy Sherman photo selling for over US$2 million and a Hiroshi Sugimoto triptych selling for US$1.8 million. The top 10 list probably needs to be updated. Asianartfan 10:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this It appears that Cindy Sherman's "untitled #153" sold for US$2,700,000. That would be in addition to Cindy Sherman's "untitled #92", sold for US$2,112,000, mentioned and referenced above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brownox (talk • contribs) 05:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this information seems completely outdated. We're now at the end of 2015, and several prices have changed (pictures sold again for higher prices) and for example the most expensive one (On December 9, 2014) isn't even mentioned - which is normal due to the lack of updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.38.53.77 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top ten per artnet, 2003[edit]

I note with interest that artnet's 2003 list has two photos listed at a sale price of 607,500, yet neither is listed in this article, even though the price is higher than of some items that are listed. Assuming that artnet's listing is correct, and that this article has only existed since 2005, I am left to conclude that this article has never been accurate. Worse still, the artnet link has been in the article since 25 October 2005, shortly after its creation. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DianeArbusAperture.jpg[edit]

The image Image:DianeArbusAperture.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Print not photo[edit]

This item was pulled from the list, because it is a print, not a photograph:

  • Richard Prince, "Untitled (Cowboy)" (c.2001–2002), $3,401,000, Sotheby's New York, November 14, 2007

– Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lik's Phantom[edit]

The claim that Peter Lik sold a print for a large pile is currently sourced to . . . Peter Lik.

I duckduckwent for this.

  • "Peter Lik: Who is the record-breaking photographer behind the $7.8m Phantom?", abc.net.au. Quote: Australian-born photographer Peter Lik has reportedly made history by selling his photograph, Phantom, for $7.8 million, setting a world record. / Phantom, a black-and-white depiction of a ghostlike figure, was taken in Arizona's Antelope Canyon and sold to a private collector, the photographer said. There's no indication of where this was reported (other than by Lik himself).
  • "Peter Lik’s 'Phantom' photograph breaks world record with $6.5 million sale", dpreview.com. Quote: The world's most expensive photograph has sold for $6.5 million to a private collector. However, we're not told where this information comes from, although it's hinted that the source was "Lik's representatives".

Any better source?

Without a solid source, this should be deleted as unverifiable at best. -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC article is the one that led me to make these changes. It is also reported elsewhere, to wit:
In the case of a private sale, what more reliable sources than multiple news reports could you expect? —sroc 💬 10:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ABC article doesn't give a credible source.
  • Ditto for the news.com.au article, whose author isn't specified.
  • The SMH article (which incidentally seems to be recycled from the WashPo) is signed and does say that he sold it for this price, though it still doesn't mention any evidence for this.
  • The Daily Mail article is signed, and says he sold it for the price. But it doesn't give evidence, and anyway it's only the Daily Mail.
  • I've not heard of IBT. For what it's worth, the article is signed and says he sold it for this price. No evidence provided.
  • The koamtv.com page says "SOURCE LIK USA". Oh dear.
Is there any indication of evidence aside from Lik's company? If not, I think this should be ignored. If the sale was directly from Lik's company to somebody who prefers not to say anything about the matter, then yes it seems inherently unverifiable and thus better ignored. -- Hoary (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is reported in multiple reliable sources, including several reputable, well-established news organisations. It is not our place to second-guess such sources or challenge them for their sources, much less to omit facts which are appropriately sourced. If there are reliable sources which doubt the authenticity of those reports, then this can be noted in the article.mm—sroc 💬 10:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as I noted, at least one of the article cites confirmation from the buyer. You haven't heard of the International Business Times? —sroc 💬 11:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've never heard of the International Business Times. (I read that this is a website and not a dead-tree enterprise, so I don't think we need italicize.) Let's put aside the koamtv.com and Daily Mail pages. Well then:
So the claim still looks eminently deleteworthy to me. -- Hoary (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sale has been reported as fact by multiple reputable news outlets whose job is to fact check; it is not for us to second-guess them. Although Fairfax arts reporter Andrew Taylor has questioned the authenticity of the claim, his article 'We wouldn't lie about this': lawyer defends $8 million Peter Lik sale quotes attorneys acting for both the anonymous buyer ("We wouldn't lie about this... Quite frankly it would be insane to make this up") and the vendor ("The sale is real. We lawyers will not risk our licence by untruthful claims"). Now, you could cite the article to say that Taylor was skeptical of the sale or that quoted art critics question the artistic value of the work, but that does not disprove that the sale took place as reported; in fact, the quotes from the attorneys show that journalists have asked probing questions to verify the sale as best they can, despite the actual documentation of the sale being kept private. If there was real reason to doubt the sale, all those reliable sources wouldn't be reporting it. The purpose of WP:RS is to avoid frivolous, made up gossip passing into Wikipedia, not to provide a means for editors to take out material reported in reliable sources that they just don't believe. —sroc 💬 15:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sale has been reported as fact by multiple reputable news outlets whose job is to fact check: hardly. The sale has been reported as fact by a small number of reputable news outlets whose job, an optimist might suppose, is to fact check. But (as is standard for "reputable" news outlets) there is little sign that they did any fact checking. The story, or non-story, was then taken up by the ever excitable Jonathan Jones, who ... subjected the photo to his aesthetic judgement. And there's been reporting of the reporting of the sale, mixed with more or less of "there's something screwy about this". (Incidentally, the WashPo article is here.) Two law companies attest to the sale, but I don't think they've been asked about imaginable complexities (such as that the print was soon bought back, or that it came with a sweetener such as a free house). -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Denying facts reported in reliable sources because they don't sound right to you is original research. If you wanted to ask the law firms more probing questions, maybe you should be a journalist, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper for you to conduct your own investigations to subvert actual news sources. By all means, include a footnote that the sale cannot be independently verified (oh, look, there already is one!) or referring to the controversy, but that's no reason to omit the sale entirely when so many reliable sources are reporting it. —sroc 💬 05:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of your premisses is that "so many reliable sources are reporting" the sale. Not many seem to do so. I really don't want to go through the sources listed above yet again, but I'll go through the two cited in the article. Yes, the IBT article reports it as a fact. (It gives no evidence for this.) However, the ABC article starts "Australian-born photographer Peter Lik has reportedly made history by selling his photograph, Phantom, for $7.8 million, setting a world record" (my emphasis). (No mention of where these reports were found.) Is it "original research" to infer from the combination of "reportedly" and "The sale has not been independently verified" (lower down) that ABC is hedging, and that it's not so much reporting a sale as reporting the claim of a sale? -- Hoary (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as we know, there is no other source for any of his claims than his own website(which advertises on the homepage "Peter Lik makes Art History"), All three photographs are deleworthy as they are the only unverified entries in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.18.7.118 (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See all the other sources cited above, amongst others. —sroc 💬 05:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A news agency which cites Lik's own press release is not a second source, It is reporting the claim made by Lik, nothing more, Has anyone found an actual second source for his claims yet? The general reaction is that no one takes his claim seriously and therefore it is deleworthy to keep the list clean and ad free. see for example:
User:Sroc Do you work for some kind of an Australian PR Agency? I noticed that you did the first edit that added all three Lik entries to the list and your page creation history shows that you have only created pages for barely known Australian artists, and now Peter Lik, an Australian self proclaimed "Fine Art Photographer". You're also actively present here defending the non-existent sources. One wonders if you're here for something more than fine tuning this amazing encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.232.124.60 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sroc's activity here goes back over seven years; recently, it has included such edits as this addition of commentary, which does nothing to help any individual person, whether or not Australian, artistic, or well known. And therefore no, Sroc probably does not work for an Australian PR agency. Right, now that's out of the way, can we please keep it classy? -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hoary. For the record, I do not work in PR and represent no one; I'm only here to improve the encyclopedia. As I noted previously, I came here from reading the report from ABC News; I took an interest, read the article on Peter Lik and improved it, added a link to List of most expensive photographs, then set about updating it accordingly (fixing up the formatting along the way).
Although the record-breaking sale may be hard to believe and some may treat it with skepticism, there are reliable sources and excluding the information would be damaging to the encyclopedia: depriving our readers of knowledge. I have no objections to including a footnote or brief discussion about the skepticism in the article, but I strongly object to the information being excluded altogether. Once again, it is not our place to deny what has been reported in reliable sources. —sroc 💬 16:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious claim. Taylor, Andrew (12 December 2014), "Buyer beware: Treat Peter Lik photo sale with scepticism", Canberra Times. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of another artwork For the Love of God sold by a self publicist Damien Hurst for £50,000,000. Again the buyer was anonymous. Eventually it was discovered that the buyer was a group of people including Mr. Hurst himself. So a lawyer could say that the sale really has gone ahead even if the buyer is Mr. Lik himself. 178.78.100.201 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Lik's Phantom and all the other propertied sales should be removed. Verification based on a statement you or your company make is circular logic and therefor untrustworthy. I'm new at this but I would think he should be put at the bottom of this list as a unverified private sales list or a srporate entry altogether. ps sorry I'm new to wiki and don't know how to sign this to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera-mind (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't get any verification of this sale other Peter Lik himself. His Prints will be removed from this list. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This breaks Wikipedia's own rules. Coffeerob (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable Price[edit]

If there is no public sale of a photograph their is nothing that verifies the claim of any photograph being sold at that price Then it doesn't belong on this list no matter who the photographer is. Encyclopedic content must be verified, and so must the price a photograph goes for. Coffeerob (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New threads at the foot of the page, please.
I tend to agree with you, but newspapers do seem to believe that such a sale took place. An interesting recent article is "Peter Lik’s Recipe for Success: Sell Prints. Print Money.": this suggests that the millions said to be spent on Lik's work would be better spent elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to question the assertions that millions are spent. -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again no third party or public verification. All references lead back to the originator of the content in the case the Lawyer who claims to work for anonymous buyer claims the buyer is real and so is the print, Neither of which have ever materialized. So regardless of who you are or what your last name is we need verification of said amount before it can be listed. Other wise it just all leads back to the same source in this case Lik. My thread is not specifically targeted at Lik, But any unsubstantiated claim. Coffeerob (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says:

In December 2014, Peter Lik reportedly sold a photograph titled "Phantom" to an anonymous bidder for $6.5 million, making it potentially the highest price paid for a photograph.[22][23][24] Lik's claim has been greeted with much scepticism. Claims of the sale have never been proven and the mysterious buyer have [sic] never come forward.[25]
  • I believe that it's normal for buyers of what are marketed as works of art not to name themselves or be named.
  • How is the buyer "mysterious" other than in being unidentified? (Or what is "mysterious" for?)
  • The claim of "much scepticism" has one source, one that doesn't identify others who are sceptical. (You're sceptical. I'm sceptical. But we WP editors -- as long as we are editing WP -- are nobodies.)
  • Blake Andrews has humorously described a motive for this scepticism.

My own impression was that a reaction at least as common as scepticism was "Yes, it probably did happen. After all, there are plenty of rich suckers, and Lik knows how to play them." See this for example. -- Hoary (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Abosch Potato #345 (2010)[edit]

Once again If we can't get any verification of this sale other Kevin Abosch himself. His Prints will be removed from this list. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This breaks Wikipedia's own rules.

Any photographer with any claim could say "I sold this photo of my dog / a rose / or this carrot" and make such claims? Would we add them to this list? I don't think so.

Like I stated on February of 2015:

Again no third party or public verification. All references lead back to the originator of the content ... So regardless of who you are or what your last name is we need verification of said amount before it can be listed. Other wise it just all leads back to the same source in this case Lik. My thread is not specifically targeted at Lik, But any unsubstantiated claim. Coffeerob (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Currently: "In 2015 Kevin Abosch reportedly sold a photograph called Potato #345 (2010) to an anonymous bidder for $1 million." Let's suppose that he indeed did. A mere million would put it out of the top 25 (or 26). I suggest complete removal from this (to me, rather strange) article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

missing entry[edit]

We had a call on de:Wikipedia:Telefonberatung for a missing photograph worth 3.265.000 US-Dollar. Please find article at Christies [1][2] . Conny (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Updating[edit]

I did my best to update the list of the 30 most expensive photographs ever sold. I decided to keep this number, because its extremely difficult to update a bigger one. Its still larger than the previous number of 27 photographs.Mistico Dois (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doge doesn't count because it's an NFT[edit]

They aren't purchasing the image, they're purchasing a token that "corresponds" to the image NerdKnight66 (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, NFTs should not be counted as photographs whole-sale. 64.228.255.18 (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I am removing it, when I have more time. It needs a work done to correct the entire list.Mistico Dois (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_most_expensive_photographs&oldid=1208268645"