|
|
Given that a single Steichen print went for close to $3 million just a few years back, and a single Gursky sold for over $3 million shortly thereafter, the notion that no one in what Maneker calls “the photography market” can afford to buy the Polaroid Collection is laughable on its face. If price is no object, then what is? This brings me to the logical conclusion that every potential buyer has discovered in examining the collection’s documentation that the bulk of it is contractually encumbered in ways that prohibit (or at least problematize) its sale, thus also making perilous its purchase as a whole. . . . […]
I don’t know if something’s rotten in the state of Denmark, but something’s definitely off in the state of Minnesota. Evidence accumulates that Polaroid has known all along that it never owned most of the work in its collection outright, yet the contents of that collection now move toward the auction block with the approval of the Minnesota Bankruptcy Court. . . . […]
Polaroid Model 20 Swinger Manual, 1965. Ali McGraw as cover model.
It ain’t over till it’s over, as Yogi Berra famously remarked.
Presently a distinguished law firm is in dialogue with a distinguished photographer concerning the possibility of filing a Motion for Rehearing of the August 27, 2009 decision by the Minnesota Bankruptcy […]
I hasten to point out a fundamental conceptual error that Bennett and his colleagues have made, as exemplified by this last statement. Their subject, said dead salmon, was not “perceiving humans.” It was perceiving photographs of humans. The relationship between a photograph of a thing and the thing itself is indexical at best, and fraught with complexities and qualifications. Clearly Bennett et al need to read more theory of photography. On a positive note, Bennett and his group also scanned a pumpkin and a Cornish hen (both certifiably deceased) with no resulting critical commentary. What a relief. . . . […]
Coverage of the situation relating to the pending sale of the Polaroid Collection continues. Here’s a story from the September 22, 2009 issue of the Boston Globe, “Through the lens of time,” by Globe staffer Alex Beam. Beam quotes Sam Yanes, formerly of Polaroid and instrumental in the formation of the collection, as follows: “I […]
|
 SPJ Research Award 2014 Thought for the Day Ignorance is a condition; dumbness is a commitment.
Copyright Notice All content of this publication is © copyright 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026 by A. D. Coleman unless otherwise noted. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced for commercial purposes without prior written permission. All photos copyright by the individual photographers. "Fair use" allows quotation of excerpts of textual material from this site for educational and other noncommercial purposes.
Neither A. D. Coleman nor Photocritic International are responsible for the content of external Internet sites to which this blog links.
|
SPJ Research Award 2014
Polaroid Collection: Update 8
Given that a single Steichen print went for close to $3 million just a few years back, and a single Gursky sold for over $3 million shortly thereafter, the notion that no one in what Maneker calls “the photography market” can afford to buy the Polaroid Collection is laughable on its face. If price is no object, then what is? This brings me to the logical conclusion that every potential buyer has discovered in examining the collection’s documentation that the bulk of it is contractually encumbered in ways that prohibit (or at least problematize) its sale, thus also making perilous its purchase as a whole. . . . […]