Why would someone pay almost $180,000,000 for a single painting?

a reply to: EveStreet
Hey, thanks for what you do. Life would be...I donno...monochromatic?...certainly one dimensional, without your efforts. I don't have a lot of money to support the arts, but I manage to find some.

a reply to: queenofswords

Is it really "an investment"? Or, is it something else entirely?

It's so interesting - isn't it?

If you have that kind of money to spend, you really can have pretty much anything you want

You can buy real estate, boats, planes, jewels and people - you can even buy elections

(I think) art is something different - definitely. It's something intangible, mysterious, unexplainable. Art is almost un-ownable

List of most expensive paintings

I don't see it as something bored, jaded, cynical people do. Just the opposite - when you can have anything I think maybe some of those people are looking for things that mean something

But, what do I know? I don't have that kind of change

:-)

"Why would someone pay almost $180,000,000 for a single painting?"

Cause he's got the money and because there is somewhere another filthy rich guy who might one day buy it from him for more money

a reply to: queenofswords

Because it makes them feel good knowing that they have something so many people throughout history wish they could say they had


Great art is some of the rarest valuables in the universe; how much had to occur just right for an artist to concur the times and their spirit to produce a creation of pure novelty. It is a representation of the triumph of man, reaching towards the achievement of what the odds say should be impossible.

a reply to: queenofswords

They just had too much money... and apparently they didn't have my mailing address...

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Best part of this story? Fox censored the painting - Fox hates boobies. What a huge statement!!!

Fox - defenders of free speech and offensive art - they never let me down

:-)

It is absolutely disgusting that certain organs and forms of flesh exist which allow human life to exist

In my opinion the painting is not even that great....

Painting of a similar name, to me is much more inspiring and impressive

www.wikiart.org...-artistPaintings-187911

For that money they could build a tubular railway(ala elon musk) from L.A. to S.F. and name it after themselves.
Well maybe only from L.A. to Fresno, but I'm sure if someone's got that kind of dispensable income they could fork out a little more.

I just don't get how any painting has that kind of value! It could burn in a fire and poof, gone. Some good painter could copy it and trade it out for the real one, and I'd bet the buyer wouldn't know the difference. Or even if they could, so what!

Art as enjoyment to the senses is a wonderful thing. Art worth more than humanity is a joke.

a reply to: SunnyDee

WWSD (what would satan do)

a reply to: ImaFungi

WWSD? The art community is probably really happy to receive such a nice influx of money.
Maybe they call some shaman to cast a spell?

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: ImaFungi

WWSD? The art community is probably really happy to receive such a nice influx of money.
Maybe they call some shaman to cast a spell?

Oh I am sorry, I didnt know that money is given to the art community, my apologies.

originally posted by: queenofswords
Because they can????

Picasso's Women of Algiers

Last year, Christie's said its global sales of impressionist and modern art were $1.2bn, an increase of 19 per cent over the previous year.

I get that wealthy people want to purchase something no one else has. But, most of these super wealthy purchasers are anonymous.

In February 2015, a Paul Gauguin went for $300,000,000. The buyer is unknown.

Is it really "an investment"? Or, is it something else entirely?

Why would you pay 20 bucks for a velvet dog poker picture....same reason...

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: SunnyDee

WWSD (what would satan do)

Are you saying these people are devilish?

I would agree with that.

a reply to: ImaFungi

There are a lot of starving artists out there on the streets barely able to survive.
What would have happened if Omar Khayyám had to sell pot to keep food on the table?

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: ImaFungi

There are a lot of starving artists out there on the streets barely able to survive.
What would have happened if Omar Khayyám had to sell pot to keep food on the table?

180,000,000! And that money did not fund Picasso (edit...or Gauguin).

It isn't 'boy with apple'

Definitely not worth $180m.

Picasso makes me cringe..
now Dali...there was a real painter.

a reply to: EveStreet

A Star from me just for filling art with life and sorry for my rant as well, in advance. We artists, the holy we (me, myself and I) are very sad about your perception of art. Any idea at the right place and time is a piece of art I guess and yes, everybody can be an artist. Thus not everything others do has to fit into your sentimental perception of beauty, thats a far too relative 'absolut' term in the equasion... if you catch my drift. But I would even go further to state, that 'piss on stage' is a very intriguing illustration for the whole market itself, heck... it's a genius portrait of every market in this mess of patched cesspools we call a 'modern livestyle'.
Lot's of ''' to make a point, but I'm not finished setting skidmarks with typography yet. We artist don't see ourselfs dependent from 'rich' folks and we never have been 'pets of the wealthy'. Actually we've always been here to enrich this sad and empty struggle for power and shiny objects with some said beauty, formerly also known as the glory of invention. This is our place as well and we don't even care if we get our paycheck after all, we will continue to do so.

Now please... get yourself together and stop ranting about this blessing of art, which should be considered way too heavy to bear indeed - in the material world. We all might break at some point eventually, but its the way we handle things which might be usefull in the aftermath. The kind of genius I hold in mind would embrace his suffering with pride, able to transmutate the energy to something of astonishing beauty, which might even transport enough power to inspire others. Thats why I would consider myself rather gifted by Fortuna herself than beeing in an unfortunate position after all, even if that might actually seem to be more likely the case.

I would rather see patrons buying art from living artists

Especially from the young ones, at least one point we can wholeheartly agree with. All good wishes for you anyway, struggling we advance!



Just think about our genius pal Pablo, as he had some very bad times as well:

"I do not seek. I find"

Best advise ever given, priceless on its own...

originally posted by: queenofswords
Because they can????

Picasso's Women of Algiers

Last year, Christie's said its global sales of impressionist and modern art were $1.2bn, an increase of 19 per cent over the previous year.

I get that wealthy people want to purchase something no one else has. But, most of these super wealthy purchasers are anonymous.

In February 2015, a Paul Gauguin went for $300,000,000. The buyer is unknown.

Is it really "an investment"? Or, is it something else entirely?

Auctions are usually anonymous, especially silent auctions.

The super wealthy are always doing that. No one is going to force them to share the wealth, so people on this thread shouldn't be all up in arms because some 1%er spent their money on something they want. At least they didn't buy people.

Now is there going to be Occupy Art Auctions?

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Thanks Johnny! We artists appreciate it a bunch