Artnet’s current auction, Signature Works, features career-defining photographs by influential and daring creators, spanning from classic shots by Helmut Newton to Zanele Muholi’s bold, contemporary work.

The sale also features iconic photographs that originate from the commercial photography industry, including images by Horst P. Horst, Annie Leibovitz, and Steve McCurry that were originally produced for print publications. We spoke to Artnet’s Head of Photographs, Susanna Wenniger, about how these works represent profound artistic accomplishments while simultaneously satisfying a commercial practice—as well as contributed to artists’ long-standing fight for photography to be considered fine art,  which has been ongoing since the medium’s inception in the early 1800s.

Horst P. Horst, Mainbocher Corset (1939)

Horst P. Horst, Mainbocher Corset (1939). Est. $30,000–$50,000.

One of the earliest and most important fashion photographers in history, Horst P. Horst created distinctly modern photographs that drew inspiration from the Surrealist movement. Mainbocher Corset (1939) is Horst’s most famous work, and it was the last photograph he took in Paris before World War II. Seen from the waist up and obscured in dramatic shadow, Horst’s model resembles a classical sculpture.

The image was initially published in French Vogue in December 1939. There are two versions of the image: one with a loosened corset and the other tightened. The latter is shown here and was the version that appeared in Vogue, as the original image with the loose corset was deemed too provocative for the time. The print in our sale is a rare, large platinum palladium print from a small edition of 10. It stands out as one of the most important fashion images ever made, and it is even directly referenced in Madonna’s 1990 music video for her song Vogue.

Annie Leibovitz, Kate Moss (1999)

Annie Leibovitz, Kate Moss (1999). Est. $20,000–$30,000.

As her first foray into photographing high fashion, Annie Leibovitz was approached by Anna Wintour in 1998 to shoot a spread for American Vogue on Sean Combs—then known as Puff Daddy—and Kate Moss in Paris. “I could never be a bona fide fashion photographer,” stated Leibovitz in an interview with the New York Times. Rather, through her elaborate costumes and set designs, Leibovitz considers herself a “conceptual artist using photography.”

Leibovitz captured this image of Moss wearing an intricate headdress from fall 1999 Christian Dior couture that appropriated designs from the Hindu god Vishnu. While the accompanying article in Vogue focuses on Puff Daddy’s taste for all things luxury, this arresting image of Moss stands out as the artistic highlight of the shoot. Moss dons bejeweled earrings and a head covering while staring powerfully at the lens. A decade after its initial publication, this timeless image was jointly selected by Moss and James Danziger for the Kate Moss Portfolio, published in an edition of 30.

Annie Leibovitz, Keith Haring, New York (1986)

Annie Leibovitz, Keith Haring, New York (1986). Est. $40,000–$60,000.

Annie Leibovitz’s practice as a self-described conceptual artist is epitomized through her unconventional photographs of fellow artists, such as her iconic celebration of Keith Haring, pictured here. Leibovitz was commissioned by a Floridian magazine to capture images of the pioneering artist Keith Haring in 1986. Although the images were not published, since the magazine folded shortly after, the collaboration between Haring and Leibovitz is a testament to the important relationship between editorial and fine art. Once Leibovitz provided an all-white living room of thrifted furniture, Haring painted an array of black graffiti in his characteristic style all over the walls, sofa, and finally himself. His first time painting his body, Haring initially whitewashed just his torso. “When he came out of the dressing room he was wearing white painters’ pants,” stated Leibovitz, “but it just seemed obvious to both of us at that point that he should paint the rest of him.” Although initially intended for commercial purposes, Leibovitz’s image is a powerful conceptual portrait of one of the most important 20th-century artists, and offers lasting insight into both Haring’s and Leibovitz’s minds as creators.

Steve McCurry, Sharbat Gula, Afghan Girl, Pakistan (1984)

Steve McCurry, Sharbat Gula, Afghan Girl, Pakistan (1984). Est. $12,000–$18,000.

One of the most immediately recognizable photographic portraits of all time, Steve McCurry captured this mesmerizing shot while on assignment in Afghanistan for National Geographic. Much like how Dorothea Lange’s Migrant Mother humanized the Great Depression, McCurry’s image offered an important representation of the toll on humanity caused by the conflict in Afghanistan.

This image is a powerful example of how a photographic image can initially serve a functional purpose but then transcend its original intentions. The June 1985 cover of National Geographic has a Mona Lisa-esque intensity both from its compositional mystique and art historical prominence.

Signature Works is now open for bidding on Artnet until May 24. Browse the sale and place your bids.

Follow Artnet News on Facebook:
Want to stay ahead of the art world? Subscribe to our newsletter to get the breaking news, eye-opening interviews, and incisive critical takes that drive the conversation forward.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by The Art Newspaper, an editorial partner of CNN Style.

Prints of photographs from Madonna’s wildly popular 1992 coffee table book “Sex” will be available for purchase for the first time at Christie’s New York this fall, part of ongoing projects to mark the 30th anniversary of the controversial publication.

In October, over 40 prints first published in “Sex” will go up for sale as part of a special standalone auction. Each print will be an edition of one and signed by Madonna and fashion photographer Steven Meisel, who shot the book, with prices ranging from $50,000 on the low end up to $300,000, according to Darius Himes, Christie’s deputy chairman and international head of photographs. Some of the proceeds will go toward Raising Malawi, a nonprofit founded by Madonna in 2006 to support orphans and vulnerable children in the southeast African country.

“Thirty years on, ‘Sex’ is still somewhat controversial, but it still reads as a very body-positive, sex-positive book,” Himes said. “It was both shocking and titillating and captured so much white-hot energy coming off of Madonna in the early 1990s.”

The publication of “Sex,” which was released in tandem with the pop star’s fifth album “Erotica,” caused a worldwide commotion in the early 1990s. The book included photographs of Madonna and others in the nude and simulating sexual acts. “Sex” also featured Madonna’s then-boyfriend, rapper Vanilla Ice, and stars like supermodel Naomi Campbell and socialite Tatiana von Fürstenberg. The Vatican told its followers to boycott the book, which was banned in countries like Ireland and Japan. Still, “Sex” was an instant hit commercially and sold more than 1.5 million copies.

The photographs featured in October’s auction were selected by Madonna, Meisel and Anthony Vaccarello, the creative director of Saint Laurent, which released a limited second run of “Sex” last year in Miami to coincide with Art Basel in Miami Beach. Those 800 copies — all signed by the “Like a Virgin” singer — sold out, and a pop-up exhibition of the photographs was a popular draw.

Himes described the series of photographs as “both playful and erotic,” adding that Meisel’s images hold up well, even three decades later.

“The series captures a moment in time of one of the great fashion photographers of his generation and the queen of pop. While there’s playfulness and campiness, there’s also a classical nude study thing going on. I think they resonate across multiple generations,” Himes says.

“Sex” was released around the peak of the AIDS epidemic in the US, Himes notes, and the book featured frank depictions of homosexuality at a time when gay relationships were less accepted in the mainstream.

In an October Instagram story, Madonna said she helped pave the way for other female artists to express their sexuality, though at the time she faced backlash for including images of “men kissing men, women kissing women and me kissing everyone.”

“I spent the next few years being interviewed by narrow-minded people who tried to shame me for empowering myself as a Woman,” Madonna wrote. “I was called a whore, a witch, a heretic and the devil.”

“Sex” wasn’t Madonna’s only controversial foray into art. Last year, she teamed up with digital artist Beeple to release a line of three NFTs (non-fungible tokens) based on a 3D scan of the singer in the nude. The NFTs show Madonna giving birth to creatures like butterflies, centipedes and even a tree.

After facing backlash over what some characterized as a vulgar cash grab, Madonna defended herself by saying the project only depicts her doing “what women have been doing since the beginning of time, which is giving birth.”

“We’re always operating and living under the male gaze, and unfortunately pandering to what we think people want us to do,” Madonna said during a Twitter Spaces interview with Beeple in May 2022. “It is often a challenge to create works of art … and it isn’t always pretty.”

Before the auction in October, the photographs will be exhibited at Christie’s London from May we until June 2, then in Paris from June 27 to July 6 before heading to New York on 30 September, where they will be on display until October 6.

Do your photos get noticed? Do you have a sizeable Instagram following? If you answered yes to those, you are probably in for a shock.

The Evolving Art of Photography

Once was a time when photography was limited to a select few. Although there were exceptions, these tended to be rich men who dabbled in what would now be considered junior school science. Their work was studied and celebrated by their peers.

Contrary to the artists’ fears, photography didn’t replace other arts. Nevertheless, new digital technologies do displace analog methods. For example, CGI in the movie industry replaced traditional skills. Consequently, most animatronic model makers, matte painters, and stop-motion animators became redundant and were replaced by people with computers.

Sometimes, the work of the photographic pioneers was denounced by other artists: it’s not real art. That negative opinion of photography has long since melted away and, with hindsight, can be seen as other artists fearing change and attempts at gatekeeping by those with skills in pencil, brush, and chisel.

Much the same arguments used against photography being art we hear today about A.I. A.I. offers a gateway to creativity that is accessible to the masses. Of course, people fear it because it’s new and its place in our future is unknown. It’s clear to see that, similar to the way that CGI displaced some other arts, A.I. will inevitably be used instead of some commercial photography. Product photographers, for example, would do well to start retraining to use A.I. now before their work is superseded.

Nevertheless, for most of us, the joy of using a camera, and the appreciation of photographic art produced by skilled and feeling humans, won’t go away.

Photography will continue evolving despite A.I. It may about bring another quantum leap in that evolution. Previous leaps included when photography became democratized during the First World War. Kodak Vest Pocket Cameras were mass-produced and used by soldiers, despite it being illegal to use them. By the armistice in 1918, almost two million cameras had been sold. Then, with digitalization, the diversity of photographs and photographers has grown along with the population of those who wield a camera.

Since then, things have changed in a way that would be inconceivable to those early pioneers.

An estimated 1.72 trillion photos were taken during the last year, and that’s growing. That’s an unimaginable number, about seventeen times as many photos as there are stars in the Milky Way galaxy or eleven times more photographs than insects. It’s the equivalent of 305 photographs for every camera-owning person on the planet; bear in mind that only about 42% of people own a camera of any form, includingphones, which account for nearly 90% of cameras.

These are incomprehensibly high numbers, so why would our photos, insignificant drops in the flood, ever be noticed? If you think yours are being noticed, think again. About ten billion photos get uploaded to the Internet every day.

Forget the Photographic Numbers Game

Not only are our photos lost in that flood, but most of those that see them are not moved by the work.

If I post the photo online, most viewers will look at the picture and, at best, think, “that’s pretty,” give it a little red heart, before swiping it away and moving on to someone else’s pretty picture that will be similarly dismissed.

Consequently, when think about what is happening with photos we post to Instagram and Facebook, or even 500px or Flickr, we are in for a shock. Unless you are a rockstar of a photographer with a name that’s known around the world for your sublime work, hardly anybody is taking any real notice of your pictures, no matter many followers you have or likes your photos get.

Think back to the last time you went on social media and liked some photos there. Can you remember what they were? Can you even remember who took them? There’s a good chance you don’t. Everyone else does the same to your photos too.

But all your followers, their little red hearts, and blue thumbs mean nothing. Most comments are throwaway too. All they mean is that your photograph was noticed for a few seconds because it cropped up in someone’s timeline. Those photos are just as quickly forgotten.

The Spotlight Effect and Photography

Everyone is convinced that they are being noticed more than they are. This is part of what is known by psychologists as the Spotlight Effect. As we are in the center of our own little sphere of awareness, we have a limited view of the world and believe everything revolves around us. Consequently, our evaluation of how the rest of the world sees us is exaggerated. It is why we crave those little red hearts on Instagram, it means we have been noticed and reinforces our false belief in our importance.

For most of us, the idea that our photos have any impact on anyone else is a deluded one. On social media, our photos are lost under a pile of other meaningless information. Instagram could be renamed Instaforgotten.

Great photographers may get a large following, but a large following does not mean you are a great photographer. Assuming you aren’t already up there with the likes of Arnold, Adams, and Arbus, social media leads us to suffer from delusions of mediocrity.

There’s a darker side to social media too. For those with social anxiety, the Spotlight Effect can be much exaggerated. Sufferers believe that everyone is looking at and judging them negatively. Therefore, those little red hearts reinforce the belief that they are being noticed when they are not.

Even If They Notice Them, Most People Are Not Affected by Your Photos

When I look at photographs, I want to be wowed. There is little better for me than viewing someone else’s fabulous print and recognizing the thought and skill that has gone into every step of creating it. That isn’t just the photographer’s technical ability, nor is it their perfect compositions, important though both of those often are, it’s the stories they tell and the emotions that their photos evoke.

Not only do I derive enjoyment from seeing superb images, but I learn from them too, especially so if they elicit an emotional response.

But that is something so hard to achieve. Consequently, I rarely see a photo that makes a lasting impression.

Equally, I love shooting seascape photography, yet I am under no illusion that my images will affect anyone else in the same way they do me. For me, my photos are part of the experience I had when I knelt on an icy cold, windswept beach capturing a sunrise. I’m often overawed by that moment and the photo helps me to evoke that. But that feeling is mine and not yours. So, how could I expect you to feel anything like that when you look at any of my photos? I cannot.

For example, I met a client on the beach at 4:20 a.m. last week. I instructed for an hour until the sun burst through between the horizon and a bank of clouds, flooding the scene with golden light. We were both in awe of the spectacle. Would the photos shot mean as much to you as they do to me? Probably not. For me to expect that would be an unrealistic expectation.

The same applies to your photos. Nobody will have the same emotional connection to your images that you do.  Trying to portray that same feeling to a third person with a photo is nigh on impossible.

There’s Good News About Realizing You Are Not Being Noticed

You might be depressed by what I have written. However, it is good news.

Once you are unshackled from the burden of chasing those disinterested followers and meaningless likes, you are free to photograph what you want, how you want. You are being true to yourself and will get much more satisfaction from that. It will allow you to experiment with your images and grow as a photographer, instead of producing Like Bait images that looked the same as the last one you shot.

Does that mean that your photos will be noticed more? Definitely not. In fact, you might alienate some of your viewers. But, as I’ve shown, a phone-scrolling, like-button clicker means nothing. Their ignoring your work doesn’t mean anything, either.

Most sportspeople do sports for the joy of taking part. They are without any expectation of being world-class or having dedicated supporters. The majority of actors don’t expect to win an award. Musicians play their instruments without any expectation of becoming the next Mozart. The same is true of any other creative process, including painting, pottery, and prose.

Yet, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok have cloned a generation of photographers and videographers who are striving for recognition. Consequently, they produce vast qualities of disposable art. Instead of making throwaway work, they would find greater rewards from improving their work.

It’s the creativity, the process of taking the photo, that is important. Learning new proficiencies, honing them with practice, and then moving into new uncharted territory are all rewards in themselves.

Whatever you do, you are unlikely to achieve fame and fortune, or become the next Anna Atkins or Elliott Erwitt, so you might as well learn from shooting what you want in the way you enjoy.

Does this mean I am suggesting you stop posting images online? No, not at all. As someone who earns my living from photography, sharing my work online is an effective marketing strategy. It is essential, or my customers would not know I exist. Moreover, it is a good thing to share your art. Otherwise, is there any point in creating it? It’s a great thing to allow others to see the world through your eyes, and doing that online is easy. But we must accept that using that easy route will result in most people just giving your work a brief, casual glance.

Possibly, as a result of developing your own way of working, someone may connect with it and send you a message saying how much they liked it. Maybe it will inspire them to shoot similar photos. Alternatively, it might challenge their tastes and they will abuse you for it. Either way, it is a success.

I Am, Of Course, Writing This Article as an Instruction to Myself

Just like photography, writing is an art form. So, I follow my advice and write articles for myself and not for others. If someone reads it and gets something from it, even if they don’t enjoy it, that is a bonus for me. It’s the same with photography. As long as I enjoy shooting, then that’s all that matters.

Since adopting that attitude, I have been much more comfortable with what I do. It’s a healthy approach.

Do you chase followers and try to work the social media algorithms? Or are you disillusioned with likes and followers? Do you disagree with me and think that you have made it when your photos get hundreds or thousands of likes? It would be great to hear your opinions in the comments.

Samuel Fosso has been announced as the recipient of the prestigious Deutsche Börse Photography Foundation Prize 2023. The Nigerian photographer and contemporary artist is renowned for his extensive self-portraits depicting himself in the style of leading historical figures, and his dedicated near 50-year career has a definitive focus on performative photography.

The prize was awarded to Fosso in recognition of his retrospective self-titled exhibition, which was displayed for four months at the Maison Europeìenne de la Photographie in Paris, and cultivated his iconic as well as lesser-known series plus previously unseen works and archival content.

• These are the best lenses for portrait photography (opens in new tab)

One of the most distinguished awards that a photographer could receive in their lifetimes, the Deutsche Börse Photography Foundation Prize was awarded to Fosso last night at a ceremony hosted at The Photographers’ Gallery, London, in addition to receiving the grand prize of £30,000 ($37,000 / AU$56,000 approximately).

(opens in new tab)

Born in Kumba, Cameroon, in 1962 but raised in Nigeria, photographer Samuel Fosso opened up Studio Photo Nationale in 1975 at the age of just 13 – after having fled the Biafran War a few years prior. 

Specializing in commercial work as well as portraiture for most of his career, Fosso was given the title of ‘a man with 1000 faces’ as he creatively reshapes himself into another for each image. 

(opens in new tab)

Leading historical figures that have been portrayed by Fosso in his self-portraits include Martin Luther King, Angela Davis, Muhammad Ali, Tommie Smith, Patrice Lumumba, Malcolm X, and Haile Selassie, many of which form his series African Spirits (2008), while his earlier works from the 1970s are reflective of performance and social archetypes. In 2017, he created a self-portrait as the “Black Pope”. 

On winning the Deutsche Börse Prize, Fosso has shared that: “Winning this prestigious prize, recognised as one of the most important in the field of photography, means that my work is recognised by the artistic community. This recognition is very important to me. I feel a lot of joy and pride.”

(opens in new tab)

Deana Lawson, last year’s winner of the Deutsche Börse (opens in new tab)Prize, was praised for reframing the black experience through photography with her solo exhibition, Entropy which was displayed at the Kunsthalle Basel art gallery in Switzerland. 

The Deutsche Börse Photography Foundation Prize itself was founded in 1996 by The Photographers’ Gallery, and now in its twenty-seventh year, aims to reward artists and their projects which have stood out as having made the most significant contributions to the fields of international contemporary photography. 

(opens in new tab)

The other shortlisted Deutsche Börse photographers (opens in new tab) for 2023 included Bieke Depoorter, Arthur Jafa, and Frida Orupabo – who all received £5,000 (and $6,000 / AU$9,000 approximately). The exhibition showcasing all four artists will be on display at The Photographers’ Gallery (opens in new tab) until June 11 2023.

• You might also be interested in the best camera for portraits (opens in new tab), or more specifically – the best Canon portrait lenses (opens in new tab), plus the best Nikon portrait lenses (opens in new tab), and not forgetting the best lenses for creating bokeh (opens in new tab).

• Take a look at the best books on portrait photography (opens in new tab) to brush up your skills, and see these Three prime lenses every portrait photographer needs to consider (opens in new tab), plus our 14 tips for getting your best-ever portrait shots (opens in new tab)