is this worth 104 million $$$ ??

[stevie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BoyWithAPipe.JPG

no?

[lisztisforkids]

hahahahahaha....

People are so wierd....I think its kind of a cultural richy thing to see who can buy the worst paintings for the most money.

[prometheus]

Just make a couple of perfect copies. They will have the same artistic value.

[johnny-boy]

Some people have more money than brains.

John

[pianolearner]

The intrinsic value of an item is not proportional to what idiots will actually pay for it. This price is determined by "The Greater (Bigger) Fool Theory"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigger_fool_theory

google shares are a good example of this theory.

https://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=goog

[lisztisforkids]

Randomly last saturday I drank a bottle of rum with some friends on a raft in the middle of a lake and pretended we were pirates and screamed ARRRRGGGG! for a few hours.

[pianolearner]

Randomly last saturday I drank a bottle of rum with some friends on a raft in the middle of a lake and pretended we were pirates and screamed ARRRRGGGG! for a few hours.

I like rafts

[thalbergmad]

I remember watching on TV the auction of "A portrait of Dr Gachet" by Van Gogh which was at the time the highest price ever paid for a painting.

I came to the conclusion that owning something like that is a matter of prestige. The person who bought it had it placed in a bank vault and apparantly has never looked at it.

I own 1 painting which i bought at the Brands Hatch boot sale for £2.50. I am sure that has given me as much enjoyment.

[pianistimo]

you can buy paintings at boot sales?  london is mysterious.

[thalbergmad]

you can buy paintings at boot sales?  london is mysterious.

You can buy anything at bootsales my little North American nutcase.

You would be amazed at what people want to get rid of.

I picked up some really old 78's of Paderewski playing Beethoven for £2. Not sure if they are worth anything though.

Thal

[anekdote]

Wow, that is one crappy painting. But then again, I've never liked Picasso.

[thalbergmad]

I think it is horrible too.

Would not pay $104 dollars for it.

[pianistimo]

you may have a hidden treasure there, thal, with the paderewski.  i found a signed book of sousa marches at a flea market (is that what you call 'bootsale?') and stupidly gave it away to have it authenticated (that it was really sousa's signature).  i never got it back - so i guess it was.  who knows what it was worth.

[thalbergmad]

you may have a hidden treasure there, thal, with the paderewski.  i found a signed book of sousa marches at a flea market (is that what you call 'bootsale?') and stupidly gave it away to have it authenticated (that it was really sousa's signature).  i never got it back - so i guess it was.  who knows what it was worth.

It is Paderewski playing Beethoven 5 i think.

It is about 8 records.

Get the whole lot on 1 CD nowadays.

[ted]

The painting's okay. It isn't to my personal taste, but there's nothing wrong with it. The problem lies in the monetary system and the consequent mandatory ascribing of linear numeric values to everything. Since nobody has come up with a better social mechanism than money, these absurdities will continue to exist at the extremes of the capitalist system. Art has nothing to do with it. It's like gold and jewels. Why are people so interested in gold and jewels ? I've never worked out why gold and jewels are precious. As far as I can see they're uninteresting and perfectly useless. It's just because sufficient numbers of people have agreed that they shall be precious. The painting is valuable because a sufficiently large proportion of the world's wealthy population say it shall be valuable.


 

[johnny-boy]

Money sure beats bartering chickens for a bale of hay.

Money is the greatest system of bartering ever devised. If there were a better way, we’d be doing it.

John

[ted]

Quite right John. We must keep it because there is nothing else. But I wonder if it could be modified a great deal more to reduce its extremes, absurdities and inhumanities. After all, if people can agree that this painting is valuable and that gold is precious, both of which notions are demonstrably absurd, might not we somehow, slowly and globally, come around to a more sensible correlation of human value and money ?

Maybe not. Perhaps too many people like the absurdities and inhumanities. I'm not very good at thinking about these things and I'm getting worse as I get older.  Too much music ! It still seems a pity if we can't work out something better though.

[alwaystheangel]

well this moving piece of art was bought for 1.8 million by the National Gallery in Ottawa, Canada

People got really pissed off about that much being spent of taxpayer's money over a couple of lines.  It's called "voice of Fire"

Vanitas: Flesh Dress for an Albino Anorectic
By a montreal artists caused quite a stir aswell, it's 50 pounds of unrefrigerated flank steak stitched together, and part of the "art" was the process of it rotting apart, stinky!!!


From a 1991 article about the dress:

A sculpture of a dress made of raw meat, hanging at the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, has outraged politicians and food-aid agencies. The sculpture, made of 50 pounds of salted flank steak, is a waste of food and taxpayers' money, critics say. But museum curators defend the work, "Vanitas," as a graphic reminder of mortality and the aging process.
"It's a powerful piece," Helen Murphy, a museum spokeswoman, said yesterday. "It can be quite repugnant, even to people who eat meat. People just aren't prepared in some cases to say this is art."

The meat dress by Montreal artist Jana Sterbak is on a hanger beside a photo of a woman wearing it. When the meat decomposes after six weeks, it will be replaced with another $260 worth of fresh meat. "Vanitas," on display since March 8, will remain until May 20 before traveling to the United States and Europe.

[pianolearner]

Quite right John. We must keep it because there is nothing else. But I wonder if it could be modified a great deal more to reduce its extremes, absurdities and inhumanities. After all, if people can agree that this painting is valuable and that gold is precious, both of which notions are demonstrably absurd, might not we somehow, slowly and globally, come around to a more sensible correlation of human value and money ?

People don't agree anything. It's all based on three simple words - Supply and Demand. They are not dependent on currency, commodity, goods and services nor are they particular to any economic system. Take a look at nature in the wild and you will see this at its rudimentary level. Supply and demand, nothing else matters.

[ted]

I can think of dozens of other things that matter. Nature in the wild is a ghastly example of cruelty, surely completely unsuitable as a model of human behaviour in economics or anything else. Can we not, as a species, try to prove rational intelligence and kindness superior to conditioned reflex ? Are we really doomed to rush about competing and eating one another, metaphorically speaking, and prizing things of negligible value at the cost of reason and compassion ? I cannot see why this has to be the case.



 

[pianolearner]

I can think of dozens of other things that matter. Nature in the wild is a ghastly example of cruelty, surely completely unsuitable as a model of human behaviour in economics or anything else. Can we not, as a species, try to prove rational intelligence and kindness superior to conditioned reflex ? Are we really doomed to rush about competing and eating one another, metaphorically speaking, and prizing things of negligible value at the cost of reason and compassion ? I cannot see why this has to be the case.
 

How is nature a ghastly example of cruelty? Do you think humans were "civilized" from the moment we emerged as a species? Besides, I said nature is a rudimentary example. Rational intelligence does NOT determine the price of anything, not even life. Just because you can't see it doesn't make it so.

[ada]

It's a beautiful painting.

And this tirade from people who would jump down the throat of anyone who suggested Bach is crap, meaningless, "just sounds".

It's the same principle. Bach is hard to understand for those "not in the know". So is Picasso, and abstract expressionism, and performance art and Dadaism. That doesn't lessen their worth.

I don't get how people who have such a sensibility for classical music can be so ignorant  when it comes to the visual arts.

But all this has nothing to do with the absurd monetary value attached to that particular painting. Or the reverance with which the Mona Lisa, for example, is regarded.

Art, like music, isn't a commodity.

This doesn't stop the capitalist system trying to turn it into one.

[gyzzzmo]

i gues im too dumm to understand why people pay that much :S

[pianolearner]

It's a beautiful painting.

And this tirade from people who would jump down the throat of anyone who suggested Bach is crap, meaningless, "just sounds".

It's the same principle. Bach is hard to understand for those "not in the know". So is Picasso, and abstract expressionism, and performance art and Dadaism. That doesn't lessen their worth.

I don't get how people who have such a sensibility for classical music can be so ignorant  when it comes to the visual arts.

But all this has nothing to do with the absurd monetary value attached to that particular painting. Or the reverance with which the Mona Lisa, for example, is regarded.

Art, like music, isn't a commodity.

This doesn't stop the capitalist system trying to turn it into one.

You may be able to appreciate "art" but you seem to be ignorant about investing in it.

[lisztisforkids]

It's a beautiful painting.

And this tirade from people who would jump down the throat of anyone who suggested Bach is crap, meaningless, "just sounds".

It's the same principle. Bach is hard to understand for those "not in the know". So is Picasso, and abstract expressionism, and performance art and Dadaism. That doesn't lessen their worth.

I don't get how people who have such a sensibility for classical music can be so ignorant  when it comes to the visual arts.

But all this has nothing to do with the absurd monetary value attached to that particular painting. Or the reverance with which the Mona Lisa, for example, is regarded.

Art, like music, isn't a commodity.

This doesn't stop the capitalist system trying to turn it into one.

104$ million dollars! Im not saying its a terrible painting but thats a hell of a lot of money. I would rather doante 04 million dollars to a charity fund than buy any painting.

[prometheus]

The painting isn't abstract at all.

[ada]

Liszt, I agree, I'd rather see the money go somewhere worthwhile. But that doesn't stop it being a very nice piece of art.

You may be able to appreciate "art" but you seem to be ignorant about investing in it.

Not at all, some of my best friends are art dealers

True!

Art is, but shouldn't be, an investment. That's all 

[prometheus]

Isn't it funny that you assumed people thought that the painting had no artistic value because they thought the amount of money payed for the painting to be absurd?

I mean, you created a connection between the two while you wanted to say there isn't one, right?

[johnny-boy]

I would also think it absurd to pay $104,000,000 for a Bach fugue.

John

[prometheus]

Just to play or listen to it once


Painting art is messed up. Imagine that people would only care about the original recording of a Horowitz piece. Copies would be worthless. Etc, etc.

[johnny-boy]

Just to play or listen to it once


Painting art is messed up. Imagine that people would only care about the original recording of a Horowitz piece. Copies would be worthless. Etc, etc.

Even if it were a hand-written "lost" Bach fugue for my private collection (that no one but me and Bach had ever heard - and no copies were ever made).  I still wouldn't consider more than $104 for it.

John

[prometheus]

Well, a manuscript is not what it is about. It would be part of the art of calligraphy. And Bach's ones were very nasty and low quality. For example, Scriabin's ones are a lot better. Also, his music shows off his caligraphy a lot better.

If we ignore caligraphy, which we must in the case of Bach, collecting his manuscripts is like collecting Britney Spears'es panties or something. I mean, also very strange but this has nothing to do with the main subject.

[ada]

Isn't it funny that you assumed people thought that the painting had no artistic value because they thought the amount of money payed for the painting to be absurd?

I mean, you created a connection between the two while you wanted to say there isn't one, right?

The painting was referred to in this thread as "crappy"and "horrible" amd mentioned in the context of "paying the most money for the worst art".  

I was defending it as a well executed and pleasing artwork while saying this doesn't mean it should be commodified like everything else in western culture.

I acknowledge it's problematic, tho interesting, to compare music and visual art.  Art tends to be more ephemeral. That Picasso is a one-off, ie, it'll never be created again. Once it's gone it's gone. Unless it's Duchamp's urinal, which is exactly the point he was making.

A Bach fugue, on the other hand, can live on. You might lose an original hand-written score but learn how to play it and it's yours forever.'

My point in all this is that art shouldn't be written off as "crap" just because we don't understand it. (That goes for the stripey piece bought by Canada).

By the same token, it's perfectly valid that people have different taste in art, and not everyone should have to like a Picasso or a Jackson Pollock or a Tracey Emin just because the art history books, and the market price,  says we should.

 

[leahcim]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BoyWithAPipe.JPG

no?

Has anyone compared it with opus claviwhatisface yet?

[pianolearner]

Just to play or listen to it once


Painting art is messed up. Imagine that people would only care about the original recording of a Horowitz piece. Copies would be worthless. Etc, etc.

Was this comment intended to highlight the difference between music and painting? People will pay more for an original of anything because copies (like counterfeit) are worthless. Imagine your father gave you a tape of Horowitz performing solo. A tape that Horowitz himself recorded in his private studio. Would you be happy to copy it onto a CD and throw the tape in the bin?

[prometheus]

Like I said. If someone wants an original Horowitz item they want it like someone wants to have Britney Spears underwear. It is just a novelty item owned by a famous person. Apperently people want items like this, for some reason. Now I could give a list of all kinds of items people want because thet were owned by famous people; the items themselves are famous. But this has nothing to do with art.

A good copy, or maybe rather a medium, will contain all the artistic value expressed. It is silly to say that a copy of a copy has less artistic quality than the original recording. It is the same music.

[pianolearner]

Like I said. If someone wants an original Horowitz item they want it like someone wants to have Britney Spears underwear. It is just a novelty item owned by a famous person. Apperently people want items like this, for some reason. Now I could give a list of all kinds of items people want because thet were owned by famous people; the items themselves are famous. But this has nothing to do with art.

A good copy, or maybe rather a medium, will contain all the artistic value expressed. It is silly to say that a copy of a copy has less artistic quality than the original recording. It is the same music.

You didn't answer my question at all. In fact you did a superb job of avoiding it. I didn't say anything about artistic quality. If YOU were given a tape that Horowitz himself recorded in his private studio, would YOU be happy to burn a CD of it and give the original away?

[musik_man]

pwnz that painting

[prometheus]

would YOU be happy to burn a CD of it and give the original away?

I wouldn't even burn it on CD, probably. I don't like Horowitz that much. I guess the most rational thing to do is to sell it on ebay. Then what to do with the money? That depends on how I aquired that recording.

But the value would be the same kind of value as Britney Spears underwear has. I mean, you can argue that I am avoiding your point but I just can't see it any other way. We were talking about artistic value. The value of objects like this irrational. The fact that an object was owned by a famous person does not change an object at all. It remains the same. I don't see how an object like this has added value.

[pianolearner]

I wouldn't even burn it on CD, probably. I don't like Horowitz that much. I guess the most rational thing to do is to sell it on ebay. Then what to do with the money? That depends on how I aquired that recording.

But the value would be the same kind of value as Britney Spears underwear has. I mean, you can argue that I am avoiding your point but I just can't see it any other way. We were talking about artistic value. The value of objects like this irrational. The fact that an object was owned by a famous person does not change an object at all. It remains the same. I don't see how an object like this has added value.

We weren't specifically talking about artistic value. There are many reason why someone would pay vasts sums of money for a particular object. How do you put a price on sentimental value? Surley a gift from your mother/father or any other loved one is worth more than the intrisic value of the item itself. If you can't grasp this concept then you will never understand why someone would want to pay $$$$$$ for an original painting/music recording/underwear etc.

[prometheus]

I am not saying I do not understand it, through in some sense I don't. I am saying I don't agree with it and that other people should do the same.

Furthermore, the painting art world don't admit that they care more about nostalgia than about art. They masquerade caring about art.

[invictious]

if you want to check out absurdity, check out Mark Rothko and check out how much his works have been sold for.

A piece for paper with only one color painted onto it roughly with no visible means of patterns whatsoever sold at some price!

Boy, I am going to be an artist!

[pianolearner]

if you want to check out absurdity, check out Mark Rothko and check out how much his works have been sold for.

A piece for paper with only one color painted onto it roughly with no visible means of patterns whatsoever sold at some price!

Boy, I am going to be an artist!

If you really want your art to be priceless you need to paint something and then die.

[thalbergmad]

Has anyone compared it with opus claviwhatisface yet?

I have just had an awful thought.

Did Sorabji paint??

[johnny-boy]

Now if you had an original painting of Zach, then I think it would be worth $104,000,000.


John

[lisztisforkids]

I have just had an awful thought.

Did Sorabji paint??

Let us hope not..

[soliloquy]

Kandinsky <3

[Waldszenen]

If a painting like that sold for $140 million, then I'm sure that the only ever recording of a piano piece by... say... Liszt, in at least listen-able quality, would sell for a price like that too.

[prometheus]

You can make a copy of it and the original becomes pretty useless. The only reason to collect it would be to collect it because it is an item fanboy collecters want. Just like people want Jimi Hendrix his guitar, Elvis his suit, etc.

I mean, what would you all pay for Glenn Gould his chair?

[pianolearner]

You can make a copy of it and the original becomes pretty useless. The only reason to collect it would be to collect it because it is an item fanboy collecters want. Just like people want Jimi Hendrix his guitar, Elvis his suit, etc.

I mean, what would you all pay for Glenn Gould his chair?

What? How does a copy make the original useless? You have contradicted yourself.