William Eggleston, Untitled, 1970. Photo courtesy Christie's.
Some people sometimes feel like I encourage them to spend money, but not like this: if you hurry you can get a print of one of my favorite Eggleston pictures for only $100,000 to $150,000. Although of course it might go higher than that.
I wonder what they mean by "pigment print," though? You don't suppose they're asking that for an inkjet, are they? That would be a good sign for the new age.
(Thanks to Mark Erickson)
ADDENDUM: To anyone genuinely mystified by Eggleston—or to anyone who likes him!—a book I've recommended before is the still-available facsimile reprint of William Eggleston's Guide, with John Szarkowski's gorgeously faceted and persuasive essay. It's a physically small book, not requiring anything like a coffee table, and is one of the great photo books of the second half of the 20th century. Like Eggleston himself, and for the same reason, it has definite photo-historical significance: Eggleston was the first color photographer ever given a first one-man show at the Museum of Modern Art, and the Guide is the catalogue.
The original had gone up well past $400 by the time the reprint came along. The reprint (which is a facsimile, and preserves the special features of the original, like the gold-embossed, leatherette cover) won't be available forever, either. And if you buy it but don't want to keep it, just wait till it inevitably goes out of print—you'll be able to get your money back, and probably more.
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Stephen Best: "What they means by 'pigment print' is most likely UltraStable. If you do a search you'll find works of his on the medium. Essentially pure pigment on polyester, or using polyester as an intermediate and subsequently transferred to paper (I never had much success with the latter)."
Mike replies: Do those go 44x60", though? I'm just askin', I have no idea. Although I think I have a hazy memory of seeing Charles Berger displaying one at AIPAD in the '80s, and it was huge. Well, huge for the '80s....