The $450M Da Vinci
Discussion
I did have a look but couldn't see a topic already (awaits people linking current topic).
So what are people's thoughts on the $400M paid ($450.3M inc fees) for this yesterday?
I'm a long way from being a tree hugging socialist and can sort of get people paying £30M for a 250 GTO but this just seems utterly crackers, especially as there are still plenty of experts who dispute Da Vinci himself painted it.
If there is any evidence needed that the world has gone mad and there are genuinely people with more money than sense then look no further than one of the other lots sold by Christies last night.
I give you this by Cy Twombly (never heard of him) which sold for $46,437,500.
Now the Da Vinci may have been painted by the man himself and looks like a pretty good painting of Jesus to me but this thing is, in anyones book, just red paintbrush strokes on a canvas.
Staggering
So what are people's thoughts on the $400M paid ($450.3M inc fees) for this yesterday?
I'm a long way from being a tree hugging socialist and can sort of get people paying £30M for a 250 GTO but this just seems utterly crackers, especially as there are still plenty of experts who dispute Da Vinci himself painted it.
If there is any evidence needed that the world has gone mad and there are genuinely people with more money than sense then look no further than one of the other lots sold by Christies last night.
I give you this by Cy Twombly (never heard of him) which sold for $46,437,500.
Now the Da Vinci may have been painted by the man himself and looks like a pretty good painting of Jesus to me but this thing is, in anyones book, just red paintbrush strokes on a canvas.
Staggering
I think that Da Vinci painting as a unique piece of art is stunning. It's priceless until you put it up for sale and ask people to bid for it.
The comparison to the 250 GTO is interesting, there are 39 of those so not unique and if you miss one at auction there will be another along sooner or later.
The comparison to the 250 GTO is interesting, there are 39 of those so not unique and if you miss one at auction there will be another along sooner or later.
That's not 'Jesus', the guy in that painting is white for a start .
And what on earth is he holding in his hand, I can only speculate that it is a glass sphere?
Where would 'Jesus' get a glass sphere from?
So, what we have here is a picture of an unknown white guy who is possibly a time traveller, and we don't even know for sure who painted it.
Take my money!
And what on earth is he holding in his hand, I can only speculate that it is a glass sphere?
Where would 'Jesus' get a glass sphere from?
So, what we have here is a picture of an unknown white guy who is possibly a time traveller, and we don't even know for sure who painted it.
Take my money!
Davey S2 said:
I give you this by Cy Twombly (never heard of him) which sold for $46,437,500.
Now the Da Vinci may have been painted by the man himself and looks like a pretty good painting of Jesus to me but this thing is, in anyones book, just red paintbrush strokes on a canvas.
Staggering
I've said this before, 'modern' artists are nothing more than great storytellers, not artists. The sheep lap the ridiculous straplines about the symbolism of the piece and shell out large sums of money to appear (to themselves) more interesting and intelligent than other people.Now the Da Vinci may have been painted by the man himself and looks like a pretty good painting of Jesus to me but this thing is, in anyones book, just red paintbrush strokes on a canvas.
Staggering
Threads on art and modern art crop up from time to time and are as fruitless as a baron orchard.
The subject is entirely subjective.
The value of art is determined by nothing other than at least two people wanting the same painting. The cost is the result of a completion of one of them wanting it more than the other.
That's it really.
The subject is entirely subjective.
The value of art is determined by nothing other than at least two people wanting the same painting. The cost is the result of a completion of one of them wanting it more than the other.
That's it really.
StevieBee said:
Threads on art and modern art crop up from time to time and are as fruitless as a baron orchard.
The subject is entirely subjective.
The value of art is determined by nothing other than at least two people wanting the same painting. The cost is the result of a completion of one of them wanting it more than the other.
That's it really.
But that still poses the question why someone is willing to pay $46M for the painting above which involves no artistic skill whatsoever.The subject is entirely subjective.
The value of art is determined by nothing other than at least two people wanting the same painting. The cost is the result of a completion of one of them wanting it more than the other.
That's it really.
It was also the largest in a series of paintings by the 'artist' so not exactly unique. Look at it. Just look at it. $46M
Yes but nobody forced anyone to pay $46m for it at gunpoint. So at least one person must reckon it's worth nearly $46m, and another, the lucky owner, must reckon it's worth at least that.
To me, yes, it looks like some red bits on some white bits. But why is that any less attractive than the Picasso above? You might say, "Well, I could do that red squiggle". But the fact is, you didn't, did you? The fact that the artist did, and that other people can interpret that squiggle and tell you exactly why it's so squiggly, means that it has value. Subjective value, granted, but value nonetheless.
Artists have always been storytellers IMO.
ETA: I wouldn't give you a quid for it.
To me, yes, it looks like some red bits on some white bits. But why is that any less attractive than the Picasso above? You might say, "Well, I could do that red squiggle". But the fact is, you didn't, did you? The fact that the artist did, and that other people can interpret that squiggle and tell you exactly why it's so squiggly, means that it has value. Subjective value, granted, but value nonetheless.
Artists have always been storytellers IMO.
ETA: I wouldn't give you a quid for it.
I get art fetching stupids amounts of money when some skill is involved a GTO could also be viewed as art and the amounts are subjective as people have billions now so hundreds of millions is still pin money for them.
As for the red scrawl that’s not art there is no skill involved and anyone who wants to argue the point will be very impressed by my art collection on my fridge done by Bored S2upid junior aged 4. No talent whatsoever just scrawls. I’ve probably got a hundred million worth sat in the kitchen.
As for the red scrawl that’s not art there is no skill involved and anyone who wants to argue the point will be very impressed by my art collection on my fridge done by Bored S2upid junior aged 4. No talent whatsoever just scrawls. I’ve probably got a hundred million worth sat in the kitchen.
BoRED S2upid said:
I get art fetching stupids amounts of money when some skill is involved a GTO could also be viewed as art and the amounts are subjective as people have billions now so hundreds of millions is still pin money for them.
As for the red scrawl that’s not art there is no skill involved and anyone who wants to argue the point will be very impressed by my art collection on my fridge done by Bored S2upid junior aged 4. No talent whatsoever just scrawls. I’ve probably got a hundred million worth sat in the kitchen.
So sell it and buy a GTO...?As for the red scrawl that’s not art there is no skill involved and anyone who wants to argue the point will be very impressed by my art collection on my fridge done by Bored S2upid junior aged 4. No talent whatsoever just scrawls. I’ve probably got a hundred million worth sat in the kitchen.
Usget said:
Yes but nobody forced anyone to pay $46m for it at gunpoint. So at least one person must reckon it's worth nearly $46m, and another, the lucky owner, must reckon it's worth at least that.
To me, yes, it looks like some red bits on some white bits. But why is that any less attractive than the Picasso above? You might say, "Well, I could do that red squiggle". But the fact is, you didn't, did you? The fact that the artist did, and that other people can interpret that squiggle and tell you exactly why it's so squiggly, means that it has value. Subjective value, granted, but value nonetheless.
Artists have always been storytellers IMO.
ETA: I wouldn't give you a quid for it.
Well, it looks like a Da Vinci above to me. I don't know where Picasso comes from.To me, yes, it looks like some red bits on some white bits. But why is that any less attractive than the Picasso above? You might say, "Well, I could do that red squiggle". But the fact is, you didn't, did you? The fact that the artist did, and that other people can interpret that squiggle and tell you exactly why it's so squiggly, means that it has value. Subjective value, granted, but value nonetheless.
Artists have always been storytellers IMO.
ETA: I wouldn't give you a quid for it.
Of course, the point is that works of art have to be judged in the context of their time, and to people in the early 16th century, the work by Leonardo may well have looked as avent garde as the modern work does today.
A different sort of technical ability is called for, I willingly admit, but technique is not the only measure of a work's significance.
k is going on. Each to their own I guess.
As it sold in a public auction, it now has a price that everyone knows. Thus it is (hopefully) unlikely to lose money. This makes it a relatively secure store of wealth. There are not many things worth half a billion dollars that you can keep anywhere, move anywhere, without anything more sophisticated than a cardboard tube. It is the ultimate cashier's cheque or bearer share.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff