Is this piece of Art worth $8,000,000?

[kirupa]

Hey everyone,
I was browsing through the New York Times earlier this afternoon, and I stumbled upon a full page ad for Sotheby's Contemporary Art auction. Out of curiosity I went there and browsed the entries according to cost, and the following was one of the most expensive for auction:

http://search.sothebys.com/images/products/4/4/44FH3-smaller-N07938-14.jpg

(original link: http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=44FH3)
I was just wondering, what about that above painting makes it worth so much? I simply don't see anything more than various shades of red with a big white rectangular box in the middle. I am missing the spiritual element the description in the above link alludes to.

I've also never heard of Rothko. Is that a bad thing? :)

:fe:

[Marz]

Stare at for a little while..

Kind-a trippy in a way... If the painting had meaning I could see a value of $200 but not $8,000,000.

Alas.. But that's modern day money mechanics for you.. :)

[kirupa]

I guess. Maybe after having used rectangular shapes on the computer for so long, stuff like this - something that normal people would consider unique - is commonplace to us all.

[kirupa]

I think Rothko died in 1970 according to the date listed on one of the links in that page. Now that I look at it for a while, it does look like something that would look nice hanging on the wall. Though a smaller, cheaper (by a million times), blue-colored imitation would be much better :)

[kirupa]

But playa is right though - the more you stare at it, the better the painting gets.

[nobody]

I consider myself an artist, not necessarily a fully mature artist, but I do consider myself one. One thing that really bothers me is modern art. Some of it is genius, but others are just.. eh..
I can see spending 10 to 20 thousand on, but in no way do I see it being worth 8,000,000.

[kirupa]

I don't think it has been sold just yet. The minimum price for this is 8 million with, I am guessing from numerous cartoons, subsequent bids being higher :) Who knows, this could end up being one of the most expensive paintings ever sold.

[reverendflash]

http://www.entertainmentstudios.com/fine_art/rauschenberg_images/rauschenberg_02.jpg

also worth millions

by Robert Rauschenberg who is still alive...

imagine what his stuff is going to be selling for when he passes on ::makes sign against the evil eye:: ...

I have never been a fan of Warhol's stuff, but we all know how much his can of Campbell's soup is worth...

Jackson Pollack's work just looks like an orangutan was let loose with the paint tubes...

the moral of this story?

art is subjective.

Revhttp://aulman.com/rev.gif

[mlk]

you don't pay for the piece of (ahum) "art" but for the name of the artist...

If you want, I'll make and exact painted copy of the "piece-of-art" for, mhh, let say, $50 ?

[fez]

rothko is awesome
if youve every seen one of his paintings in real life, theyre all like that but theyre huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge
im talking huuuuuuuuuge
so when you stare at it for a while the colors sortof come out at you.
sonds kind of weird but its true...
seriously
theyre huuuuuuuuuuuuge

[Clayman]

thats just stupid, i wouldn't pay 100 bucks for that.

[Laslett]

Right here my 2 peneth worth

Firstly lets refer to the roasting that spazzblaster got over the 850 for the fireworks site. The client thought it was worth $850 so...


I don't know who you guys are building websites for, but I was already offered $850 for it, but I felt the amount of content that has to be added might mean I should charge more. And after doing some pricing elsewhere, this seems to be about the right price.


Thats whats its all about perception. If someone thinks its worth 8M then its worth 8M

Personally I don't like it I prefer stuff by John Miller (see attached)

But then you have Tracey Emin who gets a little depressed stays in bed for a month or two then dumps the room into Tate Modern London. I wish I could get a few thousand for the crusty state of my room then I could afford a maid to come in a tidy it up once a week. And don't get me started on Damien Hurst and pickled cows

Bottom line its worth what you'd pay for it!

[McGiver]

kirupa.com must be really going well if you browse art galeries in that price category :P

what I see in this painting: a try to paint the austrian flag ;)
I can't see any intention the painter want's to show us

I think the John Miller's painting looks cool too

[[Legoman]]

I don't think this kind of painting can be appreciated until you're standing in front of it and let it surround you, if someone has a spare 8 million to spend then why not?

I remember going to a Magritte exibition, and although it was excellent, the thing that has stuck most in my mind was standing looking at a wall. It was so pure and smooth and blue, the effect of standing in front of it was amazing, wasn't meant as art but to me it was.

[McGiver]

well, I guess I would rather buy 8000 new pc's

[Laslett]

I remember the time on National tv when they got an elephant to do a painting and then got a load of vritics in to give opinions. Most started into what the painting meant with the usual critic manner then the brought in the artist. I've never seen so much back peddling done in all my lfe!

so art is what you make of it!

[BadMagick]

Originally posted by buddhamarz
Stare at for a little while..

Kind-a trippy in a way... If that's the case, Rev's footer is pretty darn trippy too! I say to put that thing up for auction!

But really ... art is nothing like it was before. Before art was meant to educate people, for people to take something away from it and apply it to your life. Now, it's really just a way of people to show off.

"Yeah, I'm into art - just bought this piece for $3000"
"Oh really, Ted? I got a new painting myself. Cost me $8 million"

Art isn't what it used to be. Now it's a way for self centered rich dorks to compensate for their small ***** size with the size of their checkbook.

And that's all I have to say about that...

[McGiver]

compensate for their small ***** size with the size of their checkbook I prefer cars for that :azn:
btw: I drive an old VW golf

[kirupa]

Originally posted by McGiver
kirupa.com must be really going well if you browse art galeries in that price category :P
Hahaha no. It is just that very few companie would be able to buy a huge ad/feature space in the New York Times. If it wasn't for that, I would have never really checked. I figured it must be something important to have that much space for a simple painting :)

[Kitiara]

Laslett, I have that painting in my hall. :) Well, not the real one, obviously, only a £10 print, but it's still a cool picture. :)

Sometimes though, I just don't get art... How is value calculated? OK, say I draw a picture. This one:

http://www.nowingsnohalo.co.uk/extra/artistic_01.gif

How do they know whether it's worth fifty pence or fifty pounds? Or fifty thousand pounds? :hangover:

[babywax]

Like has been said before, it is all relative. Look at a dollar bill, it's just a piece of paper, completely worthless, but because of what is printed on it, it becomes valuable. I'm tired right now, but I find it kind of odd that the U.S. Goverment pays for the paper they print money in with dollars...

This painting is just like a dollar bill except in one very important aspect: Instead of going down in price, it will go up. Thus it is a very good investment, and paintings can easily be bartered into money via auction houses, if they're good paintings. Wait a few years and this painting will be worthless or priceless, so, in effect, it will end of "priceless." :)

[babywax]

Originally posted by Kitiara
Laslett, I have that painting in my hall. :) Well, not the real one, obviously, only a £10 print, but it's still a cool picture. :)

Sometimes though, I just don't get art... How is value calculated? OK, say I draw a picture. This one:

http://www.nowingsnohalo.co.uk/extra/artistic_01.gif

How do they know whether it's worth fifty pence or fifty pounds? Or fifty thousand pounds? :hangover:
Again, it's human nature. It's all about how it affects YOU. Think of it like food, food in itself is completely worthless. It doesn't even last very long. But, because there is a need, people will give things for it.

Take drugs too, they are completely worthless, and in fact they're worth less than that because they have a negative affect on people. However, due to people's short sitedness, they will pay for them because they percieve them to have a positive effect.

[andr.in]

omg! I wouldn't pay a buck for that!
I couldn't put it on my wall cuz it's too ugly to be on the wall! I don't care who painted it... what the heck am I supposed to do with that!?

That's just mad!

[imported_ave]

Take drugs too, they are completely worthless, and in fact they're worth less than that because they have a negative affect on people. However, due to people's short sitedness, they will pay for them because they percieve them to have a positive effect.

if it werent for "drugs" we may have never become "civilised" it was the shamans in the dawn of time who were the wise ones, and they were always off their nuts.. and many if not all the great painters/musicians etc were taking some recreational drug or another...so a bit wrong to say that in such a sweeping way.

as for art it is completely subjective..when i did art at school we looked into this, and there was a painting which sold for 100s of thousands and it was by a mental patient in an asylum, so just goes to show really doesnt it.

Personally though i dont like those types of paintings..there is famous one called "green on green canvas" ill let you guess what it looks like....:P

[Kitiara]

So will anyone give me a few grand for my little effort? :beam:

[kirupa]

If you changed your name to Kitiara Rothko and printed off a blank sheet of paper with a sticker in the middle, you would get 10X more ;)

[babywax]

Originally posted by ave
if it werent for "drugs" we may have never become "civilised" it was the shamans in the dawn of time who were the wise ones, and they were always off their nuts.. and many if not all the great painters/musicians etc were taking some recreational drug or another...so a bit wrong to say that in such a sweeping way.

as for art it is completely subjective..when i did art at school we looked into this, and there was a painting which sold for 100s of thousands and it was by a mental patient in an asylum, so just goes to show really doesnt it.

Personally though i dont like those types of paintings..there is famous one called "green on green canvas" ill let you guess what it looks like....:P
Hah, yeah, civilization is where it is today because people ate special mushshrooms :toad:


Often crazy people make very interesting art, due to the fact that they see things completely differently than everyone else :)

[Laslett]

Originally posted by Kitiara
So will anyone give me a few grand for my little effort? :beam:

Unfortueatly you didn't qualify from some unheard of art school and your first delivery isn't wierd enough

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kitiara
[B]Laslett, I have that painting in my hall. :) Well, not the real one, obviously, only a £10 print, but it's still a cool picture. :)
QUOTE]

Mine's signed :P

My favourite is this one

Got it in Hays Galleria when I was working in London

[fez]

psh...no one appreciates an 8 million dollar rectangle anymore
cultural revolution indeed

[.soulty]

Wow 8 mil, thats crazy!! Its pretty nice though in a abstract way.

-----------------------------------------

*gets paints and brushes out*

me gonna make me some money!

;) :beam:

[imported_ave]

i dont think its worth 8 mill
but then sports players are bought and transfered for 100s of millions and id rather have art than sport so its all relative i guess.

Us humans priorities are all wrong...people starve and die while others spend 8mill on a painting...crazy :puzzle:

[Thinker2501]

You can't appriciate a Rothco after seeing a bad scan. The quality of the pigment is amazing, the way it catches the light. Rothco and Albers revolutionized color theory, just because its been ripped of every way to Sunday since it was created doesn't detract from the original work. And i know several of you posted something to the tune that you could make more or anyone can. Well, you can't. As one who paints I can tell you that that actually does require some skill. The pros always make it look easy.

[Littlekill]

hmmm looks like cake, id pay 10 bucks for it

[RussianBeer]

Its not about looks, I think someone said it earlier; Its how much someone is willing to pay for it.

I admit 8 million is outrageous, its just what you are buying when buying art like this is the artist custom signature, its the fact that he can make anything but decides to do this, and this is what its worth. Sort of like Picasso, his later stuff was crap, but it was worth alot, because 1. Picasso was talted in ANY form of art. 2.He was famous, 3. Alot of people where willing to buy his art, not because it looks nice, but because its; Picasso

[Laslett]

Originally posted by RussianBeer
2.He was famous, 3. Alot of people where willing to buy his art, not because it looks nice, but because its; Picasso And you can pretty much guarantee he's not going to be painting any more (the rarity thing)

[McGiver]

Originally posted by Thinker2501
You can't appriciate a Rothco after seeing a bad scan. The quality of the pigment is amazing, the way it catches the light. Rothco and Albers revolutionized color theory, just because its been ripped of every way to Sunday since it was created doesn't detract from the original work. And i know several of you posted something to the tune that you could make more or anyone can. Well, you can't. As one who paints I can tell you that that actually does require some skill. The pros always make it look easy.
wow, for about 2 seconds I really thought you meant that for serious :P ;)
well, bit101 revolutioned the flash experiment art. and I guess noone would pay 8*10^6$ (not even 100 $) for one of his works, although I would prefer them in regard of the painting. (I guess he spent more time on most of his experiments than this painter for his painting)

the colors don't even fit. I wouldn't say I accept paintings of landscapes as real art, I like a picasso too, but where the hell is the art here. (a definition of my math theacher: art is if you don't understand why it's that worthy!)
what was the intention of the it's creator? did he have one???
(exept the try to mix up colors that don't fit)

[imported_ave]

You can't appriciate a Rothco after seeing a bad scan. The quality of the pigment is amazing, the way it catches the light. Rothco and Albers revolutionized color theory, just because its been ripped of every way to Sunday since it was created doesn't detract from the original work. And i know several of you posted something to the tune that you could make more or anyone can. Well, you can't. As one who paints I can tell you that that actually does require some skill. The pros always make it look easy.

Nonsense im afraid.....
I have seen art like this up close and its just as pompous and vacuous in real life as on a scan.

[novatake]

i reckon the fact is art is how u percieve it(spelling?) and if enoug people thought that would be worth that much at sotherbys then they will think it will be able to seel fo that much i must say i quite like it but i doubt its worth that much. Also this is the first ive heard of this rothco guy but then im not particularly arty. out of curiousity does any1 know if it actually went for 8million or was that the amount it did go for not the pre auction estimate.

[imported_ave]

on subject of expensive art, how about van goghs sunflowers that is PRICELESS...hmm i mean ok its good but priceless i think not