$160m for Picasso's "The Women of Algiers". ($173m with Christies commission). Is art worth it? How do you put a value on it? Is this picture worth it? That's nearly 2 whole Gareth Bales! In my view.....it's worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it, and is certainy more interesting and has more intrinsic value than $160m dollar bills. In fact using art as currency may be a good idea................
This must be a bargain at a mere $1.76 million back in 1990. Is It Art? please log in to view this image Many point to a controversial purchase made by the National Gallery of Canada in 1990 as the biggest art scandal ever seen in this country. It centred around a contemporary painting by Barnett Newman called the Voice of Fire. The painting is18 feet tall and features a simple red stripe on a blue background. Although Voice of Fire hung peacefully on loan in the gallery for two years, it was the subject of public outcry when, in the spring of 1990, the gallery decided to purchase the painting for $1.76 million. The purchase was so controversial that it went all the way to the House of Commons and sparked a fad of T-shirts and ties patterned after the painting. Felix Holtmann, a Manitoba MP who was then chair of the House of Commons committee on communications and culture, told a Winnipeg-based talk show the painting looked like “two cans of paint and two rollers and about 10 minutes would do the trick.” http://fantasyinglass.blogspot.ca/2015/04/is-it-art.html
Personally think that is a ridiculous price, whoever the artist is. A lot of art is a case of the King's New Clothes. ie if we are told an artist or a painting is good, enough times, we will eventually believe it. A case in question is Tracey Emmen maybe?
I just don't get it! I know it is all subjective etc and I'm pleased for people who look at what I consider nonsense and get pleasure from it. I won't knock their pleasure but it leaves me bemused. The Canadian thing is clearly just stupid and the Picasso looks like a jumbled mess. Consider the Mona Lisa. I understand it was nearly destroyed until some monarch decided to bestow royal favour on it and now people flock from all over the world to see it. Why? It's easily the most underwhelming peace of art of all time imo (and I do emphasise the 'imo') especially when you have to walks down a corridor in The Louvre whose walls are covered in amazing works of art before you get to it!! Just an opinion and I'm sure many will disagree.
They say that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, so if a person possessed that amount of disposal income, and the artwork made them happy, or perhaps for investment purposes, I would say go for it. For myself, I definitely see more merit in the Picasso work of art, compared to my "Voice of Fire" example, which my kids could likely knock up in an afternoon.
Art? It's worth anything or everything What makes it all crass is the fact that people buy art to trade and make investments on As a graphic artist I find that the mix with the business world is strained to say the least ... I am considered an asset today while people make money out of my work ... In fact it's reversed completely where I could command large money now I work for clients who earn a lot more Art as a business has no place IMO You can get any art commissioned in China and the quality is better at times than the original The unique nature of certain pieces make them priceless IMO and that should mean exactly that ... Yet a currency has developed ... For what to make money that doesn't add up IMO
I suggest everyone owns their own art and value shouldn't come into it Some modern sculptures in public are amazing and there lies the truth of art ... It's should be free for people to view puzzle and enjoy IMO Money and art shouldn't mix
I like Picasso's early stuff - the Blue Period. But generally, I'm not a lover of modern art. A hell of a lot is emperor's new clothes imho. We live in an era of brand names. Tracy Emin could **** on a plinth and people would pay a fortune for it.
The notion that whatever people are prepared to pay is one thing but I really loathe the idea of art investments or a lot of the collectables (especially unopened toys etc). I despise the majority on Antiques Roadshow who forget what they have so it might just as well be a pan full of pebbles and mud with perhaps a good nugget inside. Appreciate things for their intrinsic emotive value rather than the material one. In terms of value, I find it odd that original art has such value but original recordings of music aren't that desirable. The copies of music are all evenly priced whereas and universally accessible for less than a tenner but Art has an escalated price (even for prints). I like plenty of art but I'd rather have a replica than a genuine item.
Good stuff lads. No right or wrong on this one, I think. Most art is made for cash though, and always has been. The Mona Lisa, Sistine Chapel etc were all commissions, not driven from the soul of da Vinci, Michelangelo etc. In the modern world once you have made a name for yourself you can churn stuff out and people will buy it. Picasso benefitted greatly from this. The relationship between money, the rich and powerful and art has always been very incestuous. I watched 'Mr Turner' on a plane recently, loved it, but Turner is just about my favourite painter. He churned stuff out and his Dad flogged it for him. But then again I like designs by anonymous jobsmiths a lot too. As Kilburn says, it's in the eye of the beholder. What I don't like is comparisons, 'this is better than that' etc. I find it helps to know a little about the subject and context of pictures too, helped me understand why Picasso's 'Guernica' is awe inspiring, as well as very big. The only original art I have in my house is a picture of a cassette tape containing the rhythm track for the Specials' 'Ghost Town', which was recorded in a studio about 300 yards from my house. It was drawn by Horace Panter, the Specials' bassist. Which I rather like.
Loved Mr Turner, excellent film and brilliantly acted out by Timothy Spall. I have to say Turner comes a close second to my personal favourite, Constable. The realism in his work is remarkable.
That is true. You could look at two things, like one & not the other, but as soon as other people get in on it you're finished. There was two girls once, one of whom I thought was very pretty & the other not so. My acquaintances insisted it was the other way around and did so for so long that I changed my opinion. I then seen the pretty one as ugly and the ugly one as pretty. I asked the now pretty one out and went on a few dates until I realised that she was in fact ugly. Meanwhile the other one had been snapped up by someone else. I found it terribly upsetting. But that's the power of persuasion. Mad innit? Interesting. She any relation to the last King of Scotland?
What is more ridiculous, $160m for a work of art or £93m for a footballer? The latter I would suggest.
Apparently the Picasso was sold in the early 90's for $30 odd million. ...that is one hell of a profit in 20 or so years. .... If you have the money it's a bloody good investment. Not particularly my taste I actually quite like the contemporary art that Kilburn posted.
I don't get Picasso, Turner would be my favourite too. Stubbs was always a puzzle to me. He spent his whole life painting horses and never got one right. Either that or horses had smaller heads in those days.
There's two different sides to this question for me. I would say that the painting above isn't worth $160m and that's because it's not the skill and talent that sold the painting. It's the name. Although I'm far from being a connoisseur on art, I can appreciate that a classic work that was created prior to the mid nineteenth century is more relevant. Before we had any form of media of which photography was the first, the only way you knew what anyone looked like was by paintings. These men ( it was generally, no women come to mind) after all their skill and training would sit down and create a piece of art which would capture a moment in time that we can still enjoy to this day. This is the only way this was possible. To sit and work on a piece which could take months or even years in some cases requires incredible dedication and skill. They would've had to choose their subject matter carefully. ( Unless commissioned as you mentioned. ) As well as all this there are many other facets to be considered. Composition, subject, materials, genre,school or movement etc etc. The best art I've ever seen is the 3-D frescos in the corridor leading up to the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. Incredible. I'm also fond of Turner's 'The Fighting Temeraire' which you posed as a question in the pub quiz thread. Now that's highly emotive and has a lot more to say than Picasso's effort. So the short answer is yes, and in some cases as above no. Picasso produced over 50,000 works in his lifetime, that's a bit much isn't it for a serious and dedicated artist? Is this the piece of original art you have Stan? ... http://www.horacepanterart.com/gallery/ghost-town/
If photographic representation is what you're after then Canaletto would be the man - incredible accuracy. I've heard Hollywood are making a film about a man that only sees the financial value in paintings rather than any deeper understanding. It's going to be called Shallow Hals. Cultural quota of bad jokes filled, I shall retreat to the cloak room and beyond....
Another interesting thread from SB, you're on fire lately, although I hope not literally. Once went to an Art show in a hotel one Sunday afternoon. Rows and rows of paintings, mostly landscapes and wrinkled portraits of wizened old fishermen. I overheard a conversation between two exhibitors in a quiet corner. One was cursing his luck that he hadn't brought more seascapes, as they appeared to be going down a treat. The other man said that recently he had done a painting of a stormy sea which he felt was the best thing he had done. Took him ages and he had put a lot of himself into it. He didn't want to part with it but needed the cash, but the bloody thing just sat there with no takers, even though crying boys and floral still life's were flying off the wall. He decided to whisk it into a back room, using quick drying paint added in a couple of kids and a dog and rehung it in the main hall. It was sold within minutes, no haggling. The Picasso in the OP I could stare at all day. Kilburn's painting I would give a chance to. I would need to see it in the canvas.
