Subscribe to ListverseTop 10 Most Expensive Paintings
- Published November 7, 2007 - 144 Comments
Great art usually comes with a high price – and sometimes unbelievably so. This is a list of the most expensive paintings sold to date. The prices quoted are inflation adjusted to 2007 US dollars. Prices are in millions of dollars.
10. Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II 89.1m Wikipedia
Artist: Gustav Klimt
Adele Bloch-Bauer II is a 1912 painting by Gustav Klimt. Adele Bloch-Bauer was the wife of Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, who was a wealthy industrialist who sponsored the arts and supported Gustav Klimt. Adele Bloch-Bauer was the only model to be painted twice by Klimt; she also appeared in the much more famous Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I.
9. Portrait de l’artiste sans barbe 90.1m Wikipedia
Artist: Vincent van Gogh
The Self-portraits of Vincent van Gogh are, together with his sunflowers, some of his most-admired paintings. From 1886 to 1889 he produced over 12 self-portraits.
8. Dora Maar au Chat 97.0m Wikipedia
Artist: Pablo Picasso
Dora Maar au Chat (Dora Maar with Cat) is a 1941 painting by Pablo Picasso. It depicts Dora Maar, the painter’s Croatian mistress, seated on a chair with a small cat perched on her shoulders. This painting is world-famous and is now one of the world’s most expensive paintings.
7. Irises 97.5m Wikipedia
Artist: Vincent van Gogh
Irises is a painting by the Dutch artist Vincent van Gogh. It was one of his first works while he was at the asylum at Saint Paul-de-Mausole in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence, France in the last year before his death in 1890.
6. Garçon à la pipe 113.4m Wikipedia
Artist: Pablo Picasso
Owned by the estate of John Hay Whitney, on May 5, 2004 it sold for $US104.1 million at an auction in Sotheby’s in New York City, after having been given a pre-sale estimate of $70 million by the auction house. Many art critics have stated that the painting’s high sale price has much more to do with the artist’s name than with the merit or historical importance of the painting.
5. Bal au moulin de la Galette, Montmartre 122.8m Wikipedia
Artist: Pierre-Auguste Renoir
At the time of sale, it was one of the top two most expensive artworks ever sold, together with van Gogh’s Portrait of Dr Gachet, which was also purchased by Saito. Saito caused international outrage when he suggested in 1991 that he intended to cremate both paintings with him when he died. However, when Saito and his companies ran into severe financial difficulties, bankers who held the painting as collateral for loans arranged a confidential sale through Sotheby’s to an undisclosed buyer. Although not known for certain, the painting is believed to be in the hands of a Swiss collector.
4. Portrait of Dr. Gachet 129.7m Wikipedia
Artist: Vincent van Gogh
There are two authentic versions of this portrait, both executed in June 1890 during the last months of Van Gogh’s life. Both show Doctor Gachet sitting at a table and leaning his head onto his right arm, but they are easily differentiated.
3. Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I 137.6m Wikipedia
Artist: Gustav Klimt
Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I is a painting by Gustav Klimt completed in 1907. According to press reports it was sold for US$135 million to Ronald Lauder for his Neue Galerie in New York City in June 2006, which would make it at that time the most expensive painting ever sold.
2. Woman III 140.2m Wikipedia
Artist: Willem de Kooning
Woman III is a painting by abstract expressionist painter Willem de Kooning. Woman III is one of 6 paintings by Kooning in which the central theme was a woman. It measures 68 by 48 1/2 inches and was completed in 1953. In November 2006, the painting was sold by David Geffen to billionare Steven A. Cohen for $137.5 million, making it the second most expensive painting ever sold.
1. No. 5, 1948 $142.7m Wikipedia
Artist: Jackson Pollock
No. 5, 1948 is an abstract painting by Jackson Pollock (January 28, 1912 – August 11, 1956), an American painter known for his contributions to the abstract expressionist movement. The painting was done on a 8 x 4 feet sheet of fiberboard, with thick amounts of brown and yellow paint drizzled on top of it, forming a nest-like appearance.
This article is licensed under the GFDL. It uses material from the Wikipedia articles cited above.
Have your say... [Read me first | Top of page, comments]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Remember when we were kids and we drew different colors with crayons on a piece of paper and when we filled up the whole page we would color the whole thing black on top of the other colors. Then we would push down with our fingernail and make a bunch of swirly colorful designs? That’s what painting number 1 that sold for 142.7 Million dollars looks like.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I’m surprised a Monet painting isn’t there.
Pollock’s one a child could do, I couldn’t care less if caught fire.
‘Skill without imagination creates wicker-baskets and chairs, imagination without skill creates modern art’
November 7th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I’m not a big Jackson Pollock fan, but I think Vincent van Gogh was amazing (as well as a very interesting guy). I really like Renoir too.
To the “flame-throwers:”
Please don’t hurt me because I said I don’t like Jackson Pollock. I’m not comparing him to Led Zepplin.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I guess I am just not very versed in the arts but just what is it about these paintings that make them so outrageously expensive. The most expensive one looks like someone just threw a bunch of paint on a canvas. Yes most of them are nice paintings but I just don’t understand why the high price tags.mabey i could just fling a bunch of paint on a piece of canvas and see if I can get rich.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Unfortunately, since the values are tied to the US Dollar, you’ll have to update this article by the hour to keep it accurate.
Pollack’s piece (which if up to me would be renamed “No. 2″) is probably up to 150 mil since you posted it. Apparently, I have no eye for art.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Klimt was almost certainly a fan of mushrooms and de Kooning has to hold the record for most amount of money generated by the least amount of effort. He had to be German. Only Germans can be that efficient. Yeah, I know, the name looks Dutch.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I can’t stand modern, abstract, (and pardon my lack of other more specific artistic vocabulary words) art and I know I’m not the only one. What pretentious load of bullshit.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
I actually really love modern art – but even I don’t appreciate Jackson Pollock. Having said that – I saw one of his paintings at the Tate Modern, and in real life it was much more impressive than on the screen.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I took a course last year all about the abstract expressionism movement. I’ll admit it’s a tough movement to study because sometimes you just don’t GET the works of art and it’s hard to force its relevance. A big part of understanding the works is understanding the culture and society during which they were created. It’s hard for us nowadays to appreciate a Pollock as it was when it was first exhibited in a post-WWII world where reality is skewed and confusing.
On another note, the Van Gogh’s are absolutely gorgeous works.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Renoir and Van Gough were master artists. Picasso, Kooning and Pollock scam artists.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Pollock is hard for people to take because they want to feel that they are *looking* at art when they see it, and they get offended when they think they’ve been hoodwinked. This is true of a lot of abstract art, not just abstract expressionism. What they often don’t understand is that much of “modern” art and much of abstract in particular is a *reaction* to the world around the artist at the time and less a *depiction* of something. People want *depictions* of things—they want to see a portrait or a landscape or a still life. They don’t understand how an *expression* of feeling or a reaction to society or the world can BE art.
Moreover, people expect art to be “pretty” in some way, to please the senses. This is a long-standing tradition in western art–the depiction of beauty and the stirring of the senses by the offer of beauty to the viewer of the piece. But artists in the modern world began to feel that this was a falsehood–the offering up of beauty in a world that was wracked with ugliness and horror and de-humanization. So they took to reacting to that world, and art began to express this reaction (in part) instead of depicting an ideal of beauty in this or that sense.
Pollock in context is entirely understandable and certainly qualifies as great art. He’s disturbing, yes, and that’s why he’s not terribly “pleasant.” I too would frankly rather have something more pleasing hanging in my home (and I do) but it’s a mistake, I think, to dismiss Pollock as merely ugly or empty or as “something a child could do.” Doing so ignores his context and ignores what he was saying. That kind of art always offends people, but it’s important to examine why one feels offended and what lies behind it.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
hmm….jfrater: my comment appears to have posted twice. I made a slight edit to it and then for some reason it reposted instead of merely replacing the original. Can you delete the first version? Thanks.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Randall: done – the editing is playing up at the moment – I will need to look in to it this weekend.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
8, 2 and 1 is just utter crap.I could copy them using a paint brush stuck between my butt-cheeks. I mean, come on. JMurf is right. No skill only imagination. Van Gogh on the other hand is friggin awesome. But modern art ( I’m talking about those so-called “masterpieces” which are nothing but scribbles/coloured shapes/deformed figures or a combination of all three), remains something I just dont get.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
When it comes to art, frankly, I just can’t take something serious if it could be created in less than an hour. Say what you will about how Pollack being “reactionary”… Bosch was far more disturbing and far more technically gifted. Woman III must have taken de Kooning all of about 15 minutes to paint. What a crock.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
“When it comes to art, frankly, I just can’t take something serious if it could be created in less than an hour. ”
don’t dicount all works made in less time. There is an artist, his named Denny Dent that makes amazing art, usually portraits of famous people like jimi hendrix, martin luther king, etc. while listening to rock and roll music.
here’s a video
http://onemansblog.com/2007/05/09/denny-dents-incredible-performance-painting/
November 7th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I prefer Bosch to Pollock myself, rp… but Shabab WAY overexaggerates. I’m not a big fan of Picasso myself, but to call him “unskilled” is just dead wrong. A lot of people think Picasso (as well as Matisse and most other “modern” painters) ALWAYS painted in the manner for which they’re famous (i.e., cubist, fauvist, abstract, what have you) but in fact this is not so. Most started out as classically-trained and produced works in basically “realistic” styles–in the Renaissance standard, we might say. It’s true that a lot of hacks who followed in the heels of modern art could NOT draw—but this not true of the majors that are generally well known. Picasso in particular was a highly skilled draftsman, I believe.
What these artists decided, however, was that realism was a falsehood and/or a “distortion” of reality in a sense—and anyway, it was now being served well enough by photography. They decided to take Art into the realm of experiment and reaction.
It may turn some people off (some of it turns me off) but to dismiss all modern art as “scribbles” and such, and the property of unskilled hands, is a mistake.
Also, you know… the amount of time spent on a work really doesn’t define its quality. I’m trained in art myself and I can bat out sketches in just a few minutes and watercolors in only a little more time if I’m doing an overall impression rather than a detailed depiction.
The thing to remember, again, is that these things were never meant to be classically-oriented depictions OF things… they were meant to convey feeling and express emotion—sometimes outrage. Remember much of this stuff comes from the early 20th century—not a happy time in the history of man, by anyone’s definition.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Gustav Klimt is amazing.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Randall: Dude I just said, I dont GET modern art. And I dindt mean to call picasso unskilled, just that one painting (Dora Maar au Chat )doesnt seem that hard to do.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Fair enough, Randall. I used to paint quite a bit myself, though never considered myself a real artist. I was very good at an early age at copying other works. I tended to spend great time in details and therefore can appreciate the skill and effort involved in such. Now, when I look at some of the great impressionists’ works in particular, I am humbled. That is something I could not have duplicated.
That a disturbed person’s feeling expressed on canvas can elicit an emotion is great, and if someone is moved by looking at something like Woman III, then more power to the artist for finding an audience. Just doesn’t do anything at all for me.
evan: that was an amazing video! I stand corrected.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Sorry i disagree Randall because you probably took more time thinking of how to express the painting than he did thinking of what do with it. He could have been angry doing it but i could to same next time i draw when angry. i could draw a squiggly red ipod to reflect on youths anger through technology. What does the painting mean to you?
Its a pile of crap to me ‘imagination without skill’ as i said in my first comment.
Is it just a stament to say ‘look what i have done, it’s shocking, bold and new’?
im not tryin to put you down but i just think the linear thinking involoved in it makes any random thing a work of art. i think he stretches it too far
By the way picasso was genius, i think one of the biggest aspects of art is perspective and he shaped it in a whole new way, although he did shape it with another artist can think of his name, george something
personally my favourites are dali, monet, gogh and picasso
November 7th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Completely agree Randall! Short time =/= rubbish- short bursts of creativity and all that.
Still, no.1 means nothing to me, no matter how hard I’ve tried to get into it.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Randall: What you say is pretty much correct. I have studied art for a long time. What I am wondering is, how do you seem to know so much about so much? Have you discovered Wikipedia and Google and the Art or regurgitation?
November 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
The vomit I just threw up when I saw the price for Pollock’s piece is as much a work of art as the Pollock.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Binglebore: yea no kidding i could do something like that too
November 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Its a load of pollocks
November 7th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Wow. I just figured out why #1 is such a work of genius. It’s a stereogram. Hold it close to your face and cross your eyes a little bit until it comes into focus. It’s a self-portrait of Pollack laughing his ass off.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I agree number 1 does look a bit unorthodox to be worth so much, but you guys are going too far. If you don’t like his art, fine. Don’t call it “utter crap” or compare it to vomit simply because you dislike his style of painting.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
JMurf: I think that amused me way too much for only being so few words.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Though I am by no means a Van Gogh or Picasso, I am an artist and I’ve spent many long years in college and otherwise studying the theory and reaction to many artistic ‘movements’ and each has a representative, or multiple, who speak for the particular time, and that is the deal behind Jackson Pollack. No, I am not a fan per se, and I do remember the scrapings back in grade school that looked remarkably like his work –in fact my son just did one a few weeks ago and Pollack is the first thing I though of–, that being said one has to understand that who Pollack was and what he did when he did it was almost as difficult to absorb as a train wreck: it just was what it was and it flew in the face of tradition and kicked to the curb so much normality that it scared people to see it. It’s one thing to take a bunch of paint and drizzle it all over the place, but it’s quite another to do in order to make a valid point about a stagnant artistic atmosphere and that’s what Pollack truly did. Is it worth the price paid? I don’t really know. Would I like to sell a piece of my illustrations for a third of that? You’re damn right.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I learned an appreciation for art at a young age. I’m sure I saw more Renoir’s & Picasso’s before age 15 than most people will see in their lives. I realize I’m fortunate for this, and I’ll remember them always.
I may be slightly biased toward the impressionists on the list (even if my favorite artists are Escher & Giger) but I really didn’t expect No. 5 to be a $140 m piece. Holy cow.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Do some of you actually sit and wonder why it would be worth the value or do you just stick your head up your own ass and type? I enjoy opinions but some of the comments made here, specially regarding Pollack borderlines ignorance. Comparing an art piece to vomit? What are we 5?
November 7th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Well guys, as Type O Negative used to say:
“Don’t mistake lack of talent for genius.”
Somebody out there got hosed.
And yes, art is expression, and all of it is valid, but it is also completely subjective. If one were so inclined, as in a Rorschach test, one could easily make the mental leap that the Pollack piece resembles regurgitation. It certainly looks more like vomit than say, a spaceship or a monkey…
(And before you start lining up to tell me how ignorant I am— I know it’s not a monkey.)
November 8th, 2007 at 1:16 am
The only one out of them I’d buy is no.5, the rest are not good at all. The Kooning is terrible, I dunno why anyone would pay even a fiver for it.
I can never understand why everyone seems to love Picasso so much, I think his cubist drawings are aweful, especially the waste of wall space that is ‘Guernica’
November 8th, 2007 at 1:38 am
The only one out of them I’d buy is no.5, the rest are not good at all. The Kooning is terrible, I dunno why anyone would pay even a fiver for it.
I can never understand why everyone seems to love Picasso so much, I think his cubist drawings are aweful, especially the waste of wall space that is ‘Guernica’
For me at least, art has to look good. I can never understand why some things are considered ‘art’. Why is a signed urinal art? What could the ‘artist’ possibly be saying to us apart from “haha, i got paid loads for doing fuck all”. Same goes for all the modern art thats around these days. I remember doing Pollock type drawings in primary school, and I’m sure the ones we as 8 year olds did were better than his one.
All these ‘artists’ are so pretentious, thinking that just because they’ve done something most of us would consider a waste of time, we should pay them for it. Tracy Emin’s unmade bed thing for example. Most of us would think “I should really clean up my bed”, but she’s thought “I should really dupe people into thinking this is art so it’ll get put in a gallery and I can make money for not cleaning up after myself”. Its disgraceful.
Jfrater: I tried editing my last comment but it seems its not letting me, so I had to post again. Any chance you could delete the first one?
November 8th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Call me an uncultured swine if you must, I just don’t “get” some of this modern art. I think alot of these high dollar works are only valuable because of the name in the corner.
Perception and reaction are great, they are what make art special. Who can tell me what Pollock was trying to express with his painting? Yeah, I didn’t think so. There’s no meaning, no feeling. It looks like nothing more than a piece of plywood that someone had laying under an easel, or maybe laying in the back of a construction worker’s truck for a year or so.
My tastes run more towards the classical side, but I am not opposed to modern art. I am, however, a firm believer in skill. I’m not just talking about stroke, or even an eye for color, I am talking about the ability to express your perception/reaction/feelings in a manner recognizable by another human being. Pollock lacks this ability, or chooses not to use it. Either way, his “No. 5″ is hardly what I would choose to represent the great works of modern art.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:52 am
rp: I totally agree; I remember when I was in college (sadly, a long time ago) and was studying art for a time (switched majors a few times) impressionism was in major vogue… almost like, for a lot of students, art hadn’t existed before Manet and Monet. But then at the same time, you’d hear people downplaying the skill of many of the impressionists–I remember particularly someone denigrating Monet’s later work, when he was old—the giant waterlilies mural, for example–in essence saying that almost anybody could have done that, it was nothing more than smears of paint with a little touched-in detail. I always thought this was totally wrong. Maybe Monet’s later work *can* be held inferior to the work of his high point—that’s up to individual taste—but to me the skill was always there; it took tremendous skill to play with light the way he and the other impressionists did, to depict it as a vibrant presence in the paintings.
Bottom line is, modern art is like all art—if you want to invest the time to understand it, it can be done, but if it doesn’t do anything for you, then you move on to find something that does. The real fun is exploring art and finding something you never knew existed before, and discovering you really love it. That happened for me with Utrillo… I’d heard of him a few times but never really seen his works… then one day I found a cheap folio of his paintings at a used booksale one day, and found I really loved his stuff. Not like it’s amazingly moving work, but it just hit a chord with me.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:53 am
this list is a joke. where is bob ross?
http://www.lexx.gr/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/bob-ross-the-joy-of-painting-20060403115238486.jpg
pollock wishes he could paint happy trees and friendly clouds like this genius. and i bet none of these jokers could rock the white-fro like bobby either.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:55 am
lol i loved bob ross, i used to watch his show on tv when id be home sick from school. There was something so soothing hearing his voice and comments while watching him paint happy little trees
November 8th, 2007 at 7:56 am
jay: how about you go f**k yourself, how’s that for an answer?
ever stop to think some people just READ and went to college, smart-ass?
November 8th, 2007 at 8:11 am
whoa. looks like that hit a nerve.
November 8th, 2007 at 8:18 am
Leave it, DiscHuker.
Ever see the bit on “Family Guy” with Bob Ross? “we’ll just put a happy little shrub right there and it’ll be our secret….”
November 8th, 2007 at 8:20 am
On the subject of duration – I think that Van Gogh was famous for painting very rapidly – and Mozart could write his music incredibly fast – so I think speed is not relevant to the end result – the end result stands on its own for judgement.
Here is another good example – Giacometti is considered one of the greatest modern sculptors and painters from Italy – here is one of his drawings: http://www.lasanskystudio.com/charlie/images/2007/Giacometti.jpg
Also – remember the first time that Munch was reviewed? The Reviewer said his painting looked like lobster soup! This is the painting he was reviewing (I think): http://www.canvasreplicas.com/images/Sick%20Child%20Edvard%20Munch.jpg
And finally – check out the Top 10 Composers you Don’t Know – the exact same situation occurs in music too – modern stuff is often rubbished by people in its time – the first performance of the Rite of Spring by Stravinsky caused a riot. Stravinsky is now considered to rank with the great composers like Mozart and Beethoven.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Are you referring to me when you say Jay?
I didnt mean to offend you if i did, i said what it ment to me
I appreciate modern art, but not pollocks style, i think with art it shud be like poker [sorry bad example] easy to learn, hard to master
November 8th, 2007 at 11:23 am
JMurf: the “jay” comment is a reference to #23 I think – not you
I agree with you on the art thing too – though I think the reason it is hard to master is because those who do – have it in their blood – they are artists from birth – just lacking the essential basics to get them going.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:36 am
The thing I can’t stand about “art” and its admirers is the whole “need to make a statement” thing.
Humans are adept at communicating. If the current state of affairs is unbecoming to you, you can just say so. If the “scene” is stagnant, it’s because a bunch of high society douchebags are paying high-dollar for one thing instead of another. It has nothing to do with “art” or the creation thereof.
When one has the impulse to actually CREATE something, through any medium, it may or may not be well received by the “elite”. That does not mean it’s not art.
For example, most comic book artists can draw better than most traditional “artists”. They can also direct a narrative, using very limited space, and can produce hundreds of drawings in a very short time. This takes natural talent as well as years of study and practice.
Art is supposed to get a response from those who see/experience it. I would say the response to “Batman” has proven that it is, in fact, art. However, no turtleneck wearing beatnik would ever sink so low as to recognize these ‘funny books’ as a valid or important enough to actually be considered art. If I don’t believe something, does that in and of itself make it untrue?
Whatever the reason Pollack decided to dribble paint, the statement he was trying to make is NOT MADE OR SHOWN IN THE WORK ITSELF!!! It might have been made by simply making the painting, but the piece itself, really, means nothing. 1,000 years from now archaeologists are more likely going to think they found a dropcloth than a piece of art. And, though Pollack’s piece gets a response, the reponse is generaly, “I could do that.”
I guess I have to say that it is art technically, but $140 Million? Like I said before- Somebody got hosed.
This is different from the more experimental artists, like Picasso, who were just trying different things with paints and pencils. If it all came down, Picasso could have made a living painting portraits or landscapes. He was skilled and trained and talented— he was just trying stuff, and succeeded. And, even at his most weird, most of his paintings, if looked at closely, look like something…
And back to the statement thing:
DRAWSTRINGSHRIMPPHART
There. I made a statement. I even went so far as to misspell ‘fart’ as a metaphor for the breakdown of awareness of the human condition in corporate America.
Is it art?
Is it valid?
I made it, so it must be.
Whata load of schitt
November 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Sid: 5 1/2, why?
November 8th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Jmurf: No no, wasn’t referring to you. Jfrater was right, it was directed at poster #23.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
alright thanks for clearing that up.
Anyone else hate Warhol too?
November 8th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Yarr said: “And, though Pollack’s piece gets a response, the reponse is generally, “I could do that.””
And yet no one ever does.
On the one hand, the hostility to a lot of modern art is understandable because a great deal of it has slipped over into a dada-esque, satirical mode where the chief purpose seems to be in either shocking or disturbing the viewer, or making some transcendental statement that only the artist seems to understand. Not all contemporary art is like that, but so much of it is that it gives people an idea that the current norm is to throw stuff out there that appears to make no sense and appears to require only the most superficial and mundane creative skills. Then they feel offended, cheated, lied to and disgusted—art, they feel, shouldn’t be a waste of time, and unimaginative, talentless hacks shouldn’t pose as “artists.”
And yet… people have been reacting with that same kind of hostility to modern art ever since the first impressionist exhibition.
“And, even at his most weird, most of his paintings, if looked at closely, look like something…”
This is also is an interesting comment. Because even the least-informed and least-read of people (I’m not referring to you, Yarr, just speaking generally) have some sense that our artistic tradition stems in large part from the classical world… we still hold, then, to the “classical ideal,” that art should have an appeal, that it should, to at least some degree, involve beauty, symmetry, that, in short, “it should LOOK like something.” It’s tough for people to get beyond that. And really, I’m a classicist myself, I love the art of the Greeks… and I acknowledge the difficulty in breaking one’s attachment to that chain of tradition.
But what this tradition almost insists on ignoring is that art is also an abstraction; before the classical, in fact, the art we know was often what we today would call “abstract”–check out, for example, any collection of paleolithic or neolithic art, or the sculpture produced in the Cycladic style, before the classical age of ancient Greece. Much of this art is beautiful and haunting. Some of it is graphic and even odd, disturbing. One might almost call it surrealistic.
How we react to art says a lot. Back at the time, people reacted with violent hostility to the impressionists, the fauvists, the expressionists… (and certainly to the dadaists, cubists and futurists) there have been “art riots,” even. Yet many of the artists that so offended people were in fact classically-trained, skilled draftsmen who could draw well, who could paint in a “realistic” fashion, etc. But they chose not to.
Art has to be taken in context. Yes, an archeologist might dig up a Pollock some day and not know it for what it pertains to be. But we’ve dug up countless pieces that are a mystery to us, as well. We feel we know much of it *as* art because it seems to “depict” something—but we don’t know the “purpose,” we don’t know what the meaning was supposed to be.
The caution is, don’t dismiss art just because you can’t readily grasp it or get it or understand it. After all—look at the world around you. Look at this modern world we’ve built for ourselves. Do we really think the classical, Renaissance type of ideal should still be what “art” is? I love that stuff, myself—Bernini, Michelangelo, Carravaggio, Reubens… but our world, today, has a different context beyond that. Our religion is gone, we’ve dehumanized ourselves, we’ve lived the last 60 years under threat of the Bomb, we have a “corporate/democracy” society of conformity and some would say soullessness… terrorism, global warming… it’s not the same world that ANY of our forbears lived in.
Remember art’s going to reflect that sometimes.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Cool post there Randall.
As an aside- can anyone else see Henry VIII in the Pollack one? Or just me?
November 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Randall-
I agree with you.
I believe in art in its many forms. The thing I was trying to get across is not the relative value of a Pollack painting, but the overall shallow nature of what I call “art people”.
Crapping in a jar and calling it art…
Well, sure buddy. Knock yourself out. I’m not going to buy it.
The people that buy in to that shit (no pun intended) are doing so only to impress others of their own little social group. (not because they like, understand, appreciate ART or even the piece in question)
I think a lot of abstract (and without listing all the different types of non-realistic art out there, let’s just say abstract for the discussion) art is pretty cool. I don’t really care if I can do it myself or not, as it isn’t the point. I can play a mean guitar, but that does not make me Hendrix, even if I can play his songs.
In my comment above, I was only getting out that art should be able to stand on its own apart from the artist or the critics. The fact that there is art we don’t understand does not mean anything, really, except that maybe artists and critics were pretentious back in the day as well. Or maybe the dude just felt like decorating the wall of his cave. No meaning, just pleasin’ the missus and flingin’ some paint around. Who knows. I’ve been known to make things out of clay that looked neat, but I was just playing with my little sister’s art stuff…
November 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Pollock??? 142,7 million!!?? What a fucking waste of money!!
November 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
none of them are worth that amount of money, my kindergarten pictures are better than all of them!! seriously
November 28th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I can’t stand Abstract expressionism. Abstract paintings/photos are very, VERY beautiful[I plan to be a very Abstract guy myself], but the expressionism looks like my 4 year old cousins hand writing.
December 17th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
To all artist..I know there’s no measurement in art let’s respect the art of our co-artist.What we are going to do let’s share our talent.Speaking of millions of prizes, I think for those who receive that amount may you also share your gift to the poor support the people who need most.lets continue our artwork for the good.God bless all artist.Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Sincerely yours,
Art of Tañes
January 10th, 2008 at 2:01 am
somehow i thought the monalisa and lilies in a pond or watever would be there.there the only famous notable paintings i know
January 10th, 2008 at 2:08 am
i love number five
January 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Number one makes me want to barf..
January 27th, 2008 at 3:08 am
I just wonder that where da vinci or michealangelo is….
January 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am
#1 and #2 are you kidding me????? Save your money.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Some of those are horribly ugly. People will pay for anything.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Surprising that there isn’t a Freida Kahlo on there.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:30 am
hey! people around the world actually there are many local artist that are more talented and more skillfull than the past famous artist.like us filipino artist.the same with other artist around the world but we just only egnore them.we just only focus what we like..i don’t know if the saying says.that life is like a wheel of fortune.heheheh I think its true.I hope you also care the other local artist.GOODLUCK TO ALL THE LOCAL ARTIST ! MABUHAY ANG KABANKALANON.MABUHAY ANG NEGROSANON ! MABUHAY ANG PILIPINAS! heheheh sorry for my english.heheheh
January 31st, 2008 at 4:10 am
i think people dont actually spend lots of money for the painting, its the story behind it dat makes it bankable.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Blogball: it is famous because it was a new idea at the time. He can paint regular things, but to paint something so bold and different at the time brought forth a different way of looking at art.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
No Dali?
February 8th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
To all artist around the world try also to look my work, Art of Tañes.and give me me your comments.I’m also a local artist here in Philippines and I want to know about all ideas of all local artist and famous artist.I hope you will care for this.And hoping you will share also your paintings or pix through this site.Let’s talk about more about our life as an artists especially our behavior.thnks.More Power to all artists!
February 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Non of those painters “suck”. They are famous for some reason, okay? I don’t like modern art as well. But you should think (and read) before you say all these things. Picasso was so famous because he had a different style plus cubism is about using many dimensions instead of just one canvas. And also using the best vision of every single thing… And Pollock had a brand new style, used no brush. It’s a huge thing. Lately people do stupid things and hide under modern arts name but some of these people do really meaningful things.. Even though we don’t like the way they look or whatever, we should respect it…
February 18th, 2008 at 3:26 am
If only Vincent Van Gogh can read this article. Tsk tsk!
March 6th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Really great paintings!! I am not an expert of art, that’s why I’m still looking at Polloc’s painting trying to figure out what makes it worth hundred of million dollars!!
March 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
LOVE IS AN ART BUT EXPRESS BY THE HEART. I
March 20th, 2008 at 3:51 am
There are so many paintings out there which are really beautiful and amazing to look at. I feel that it is totally unfair and ridiculous that too much of credit is given to a painting ( regardless whether its good or ugly ) just because of the popularity of the painter. Frankly speaking, im not really talented in arts, but i feel that some of my paintings look nicer than the 10 paintings listed here..Its really sad, people should buy the paintings and not the names
March 20th, 2008 at 3:55 am
Adrian Mark: You are right – but I think many of the painters here have become famous (and their paintings worth so much) because people initially DID buy them for the look- then the scarcity lead to high prices.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:38 am
hehehe..hahahahaha..hoohohoho…makes me laugh….thats life..and this is now the art of our life….hehehehe..hahahaah ..hohohoho…
April 4th, 2008 at 4:16 am
never pay that much
April 11th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Okay,so
I among many think Pollock’s painting sucks
And I’m an artist,I’m supose to get this kind of stuff
but to me there is nothing to “get”..
I have known oh so many “artist” that splash a bunch of paint on cardboard and are so proud because they are oh so artsy..
really? come on some people arent famous for their work..
Some are like the arts worlds Paris Hilton to the acting business…even though that said i’m not saying he is.
Cause the way he talked about art is inspiring,but needless to say he is not my cup of tea
Van Gogh and Picasso oh and Renoir rock
even then thats not even my favorite type of art(which is surrealism),but they rock!
April 17th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
i thought the monalisa would feature..but what is the most expensive painting as of 2008
April 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
how come no African painting found its way to the top yet, or the talent isn’t up to the task..i would probably dispute that some day..and thats a promise to the would….don’t woe!!! opinions are like onions..
April 21st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
ok Call me some very naughty names. BUT, I would rather by a Vettriano then any of the other paintings on this list. And I wonder why there was no Monet?
Anyways, here’s the Link I will leave for you this go around.
http://www.the-artwork.com/acatalog/beautifullosersIIm.jpg
April 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Here’s Vettriano’s web site: http://www.jackvettriano.com/
Unfortunetly the site’s under construction. But, you can look up his work on Google easily.
What I think is very good about his paintings is the fact that they are life. Whether it be on the beach with your friends (Billy’s boys).
Or maybe maybe it’s at a local Diner.
Or even a little sex/eroticism (His favorite girl, or along came a spider)
They are not up to 1 Million GBP yet. But, he’s still alive. So, when he is dead and gone I’m sure they will be worth more.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 am
Its not the actual painting that matters in historical terms. Picasso, Klimt, Pollack etc all produced a work which stood outside of the accepted norm in painting at that particular time. Monet should be represented, at least his large abstracts (he never exhibited these in his lifetime, the best being at a small museum in Basel Switzerland, Europe). Pollack explained that he ‘enters’ his painting. This was a radical move at a time when the painting elite were expouting ‘intellectual’ creation (just as they are in todays world of contemporary art). The insight that Pollack and the like expounded to young artists (following his death and I was one at art school in 1962, UK) cannot be underestimated. Its not the point to copy an actual image but to understand the creative process behind it. ie: Energy, vision and non controlled creative intelligence of the third consciousness level. (Denny Dent is aware of this thesis for example). This is why the money men (investors) brawl over these works, they are told of there historical importance in pure painting terms. The reality is that few painters rarely enjoy the financial rewards of their work as in the main by the time that the work is identified as important they are dead. (This point excludes the over hyped over valued contemporary painters of course, ie: Damien Hurst etc). In the end its only the work that the artist puts in that is of any value to the actual creator as this leads him forward to another level in the quest to connect with his own creative power source.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I should rather say nr 1 forms a shit-like appearance.
May 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
There was a joke going around about Miles Davis where he came out on stage and didn’t play a note for two sets. One guy in the audience starts to leave, saying, “This is bullshit.” But his friend says, “No, man, it ain’t what he’s playing, it’s what he’s thinking!” Miles liked it so much, he started using it himself. (It eventually (perhaps incorrectly) has been attributed to Miles as how he defines the difference between good and great musicians.)
Think about times when you’ve said something funny or deep and people laughed or said “True, true.” Then a time when you’ve said something that should have been funny or deep and all you got was crickets. You were thinking something different that second time.
The same holds true for visual arts. Actually seeing a Pollock is very different than seeing a photograph of one – especially a photograph online. Most other artists that tried it after him were thinking “That’s easy! I could do that!” But if you put their paintings side by side, you can easily tell the Pollock. There’s energy and passion and something going on – it may seem like dissipated energy, but that’s expressionism for ya. in a sense, it is regurgitation – a grand, cathartic upchuck of emotions, frustrations, raging against the machine; and maybe it is supposed to look like it.
It’s still art, though, so some people like it, some don’t. Some get it, some don’t. Some like it, but don’t get it and some get it, but don’t like it.
Is it worth $142M? Of course it is. Why? Because someone paid that much for it. Doesn’t matter if it’s art or a building or a car. Someone paid that much, so it’s worth that much.
If I had $142M or the means to pay that much, would I? Not for any painting in the world. I love art, but no. I have no desire to have spent the most for something, but some folks do.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:21 am
getting back to Vettriano , I think his work varies between genius and rubbish . His latest work is interesting , especially the French Riviers inspired portraits. I think he has some new prints coming out of the Monaco grand prix. His website is http://www.photogold.co.uk
July 8th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Some of these pictures aren’t so good, I mean No. 5 looks like Jackson Pollock through water balloons at it, but instead of water in them he put paint. The only one I like is the Irises and I can do better than that!!! I think that it’s time you people changed the paintings on this list, it isn’t 1950 anymore that’s why this list is on a computer and not on paper.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
modern art is overrated. I love art and all, but 142 mil is way too much to pay for ANYTHING done by Jackson Pollock.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I made a cool list of the most expensive paintings ever sold in blist. Check it out.
http://app.blist.com/#/blist/aamitchell/Most-Expensive-Paintings
July 14th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
i really don’t know why the artwork of Jackson Pollock the no. 5, 1948 was the most expensive or the no. 1 on the list? i think that it was just a scattered paint and o not have a subject. yes we can say that it was an abstract painting but do any one see or can see the message of the painting?
July 31st, 2008 at 2:34 am
Randall – Regarding comment number 11, thankyou for expressing it so clearly. I was going to say essentially the same thing, and you saved me the trouble. Arigato.
I love the art on this list, but the fact that the Pollock (who I quite like, by the way) wasn’t valued at the third or perhaps second rank really surprised me. I would’ve assumed that something by Van Gogh would be number one. Maybe I’m biased, though – I adore Van Gogh.
I was a bit disappointed to note that the artistic schools of most of the artists were named, but Picasso’s stature as the creator (or at least most famed praticioner) of the Cubist movement wasn’t even mentioned. Must’ve skipped the authors mind, or ya just figured everyone knew that.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:43 am
“Many art critics have stated that the painting’s high sale price has much more to do with the artist’s name than with the merit or historical importance of the painting.”
That was written under #6 — Picasso’s Boy with a Pipe. Actually all of these high prices have more to do with the artist’s name than anything else. After that follows the historical importance and quite frankly the actual merit of the painting plays virtually no role at all at this high level of art sales. In fact merit hardly plays a role at any level of art sales. At the lowest levels of itinerate artists hawking their wares at art fairs, merit probably plays more part than anywhere else, but its a very unrefined taste the merit must appeal to so the merit tends to be equally unrefined. Moving up to the gallery setting, things aren’t especially more refined but a great deal more effort is made to make it appear so. There the merit of the art hardly counts either, but there’s a lot of pretending that it counts. Its not about the art really. Its about the merit of the artist.
Its all a matter of the dealer taking a personal liking to the artist. Jackson Pollock is a prime example. Peggy Guggenheim was fascinated with him as a person. He was handsome and also just oddball enough an artist to fit the part of the next advance in modernism. After he signed on with her gallery, lo and behold Life Magazine had a full spread feature with his photo and a caption: “Jackson Pollock: Is He The Greatest Living Painter in the United Stated?” Pollock couldn’t buy that kind of attention, but Peggy Guggenheim could buy it for him.
In every case, those high prices represent the hard work of promotion by art dealers. Get the right dealer and the artist is on the way to success. Otherwise, success is rarely more than a dream. Sadly for Van Gogh it came mostly after his untimely death, but for the rest they shared with their dealers in the money generated. For Picasso, that amounted to quite a lot. If it had existed at the time, he would’ve likely made the Forbes list of wealthiest people at the height of his career. That’s how its gone for artists in the modern age. A few are grossly underpaid; a few well promoted stars are grossly overpaid; and a few do manage to earn about what they’re worth. The vast majority of artists however, earn practically nothing and not necessarily because their art has less merit than the grossly overpaid art stars. As I said, the merit of the art just isn’t a very critical factor.
What the dealers do is convince some wealthy (the wealthier the better of course,) art buyers that the artist is up and coming. What the buyer seldom appreciates is that his or her buying the art is what makes the artist up and coming. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. The promotion is all to create the illusion that the artist has already arrived but getting the artwork in collections (an important museum being the highest prize,) means the artist really has arrived.
Eventually these wealthy people decide to sell the work, most commonly at auction. Its considered gauche to do this before the artist achieves legendary status. To do it too early looks like its being unloaded as if to cut one’s losses, which signals an artist on the way down. That’s not good for the artist nor for anyone with a vested interest in the artist. In due time however, it will be time to sell. That timing is what causes those prices to be so high. When a bunch of wealthy people are competing with each other for something the art marketing experts assure them is worth an exorbitant price; something of ‘legendary’ importance, all that will keep that price from going past the maximum of exorbitant is the buyers budget.
So those prices are a reflection of the buyers budgets and their faith in “experts” and really nothing more at all. It says there are people with that kind of money willing to spend it just for the pride of saying they won the art and the other immensely wealthy people who also wanted it also on the advice of experts, lost. In short, its just a game that lets them show off their wealth. They’re not connoisseurs and frankly neither do many of the connoisseurs care much about merit. They’re mostly people who, as Oscar Wilde put it, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
August 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The paintings aren’t my style but there still good
August 27th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I am homeless
August 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
homeless: ah – then you will probably find this list useful: Top 10 things you need to survive the streets.
August 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
i think pollocks work is absolute.
he doesnt want you to see a pretty picture anyways, or even to look for hiden meanings. hense why he started numbering his paintings.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I will say one thing for Jackson Pollack’s work. I didn’t think he was that great of an artist either, until I actually saw one of his paintings at the Dallas Museum. The painting had a name, “Cathedral.” It didn’t look like a cathedral; it looked like his other work. However, I didn’t know why, but I was transfixed. I couldn’t take my eyes off of it and I stood there with a slack jaw. It was like it had invisible arms and it was pulling me in.
Don’t ask why because I don’t know, but that’s what I felt when I saw it. There’s definitely something to Jackson Pollack’s work. I don’t think just anyone can do it.
October 8th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Hey Artman!
Thanks so much for the link, I fell in love with Jack Vettriano’s work!!!
xxxx
Prax
October 11th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I must say, I was rather surprised. The first two painting (1&2) are a little plain for my taste. The prices are outrageous, I cannot imagine why would anyone would want to pay millions for a few yellow dots against the brown. What about Edward Munch’s masterpiece “Scream”? Why was that not on the list, personally, I think it’s atleast a 1000 times more interesting and motivating then today’s number one most expensive painting, to say the least.
Cheers.
Kati Gurl %)
October 24th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“But I could’ve told you Vincent, this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you.”
(Sorry, just couldn’t help it!)
Harhar!
A clear depiction of the grandeur and superb artistry of Van Gogh that his arts carries such values.;)
October 28th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
If you guys and all the idiots who spent the money on this lower than average pieces of garbage makes me wanna vomit, laugh and cough at the same time. you and all you filthy rich spoiled pompous asses who call this art and would spend this money and actually have the gall to proclaim this as art. should be checked into the nearest hospital after you leave me some of your money to get your selves checked and medicine administerd.
What royal joke,,This is art ahahahaha im puking and have bad case of diahreah after reading the so called expert comments on here
December 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
You cannot have an opinion about a picture of a picture! I recently saw some of renoirs works at an immpressionist exhibition along with monet, degas etc… and his paintings by far stood out to me a prticularly think that the seine at chatou was one of the most beautiful things i have ever seen!
January 4th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Bravo to Randall, Denis, and Silkcut for providing multi-layered commentary on the works shown here,their artistic merit, and economic impact. Much appreciated!
Now let’s hope that private collectors eventually donate these paintings to public museums where we can all respond to them — noting that an artist’s purpose is not necessarily that we should “enjoy”. Leave that to the world’s chefs!
January 6th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Hum… having visited the Louvre this last year (2008) and spending the entire day looking at art (some good, some just ridiculously and bleakly academic) I have to say I came to understand why some is considered great while other is simply ‘meh…’
When you look into the ‘eyes’ of a Gericault, you just know.
So called modern art (is it right to consider stuff 100 years old ‘modern’?) can be breathtaking but it can also cause repulsion – both for its emotional impact as for its visual impact. Or simply because it means nothing to the spectator. It doesn’t matter what the establishment says it good or bad art. We must be free to decide for ourselves.
Personally, I never got why so many artists became popular while others remain in the shade. A good example is how Braque is IMO so much better than Picasso and most don’t even know the name or even consider his pivotal part in the cubist movement; artists like Bosch which are many times ignored and yet they were centuries ahead of their time; or why don’t people know who Daumier was, while Millet – or at least his work – is relatively popular? (I love both btw).
“Oh, but the real thing is much better than what you see here…”
Well, yeah… studying pictures of pictures in books when you’re in school is not the same thing as looking at it when it’s 3 feet away (or closer – I mean, try looking at ‘The Bathers at Asnieres’ in a book and then looking at the real thing, occupying half of the wall at the museum).
I agree that the real painting is many times much more impressive than a simple print or a photo, but I’m sorry, rarely anything of Pollock’s has made me want to do anything else than turn my eyes away from it. Same thing for most things ‘fauve’ – I just don’t get it.
If it does something for you, great; if it has historical significance, fine. But it’s NEVER worth 147 million dollars.
For a second, think of the actual amount of money and what it represents. Don’t tell me the legacy is priceless, because that is idiocy – no one paid 147 million dollars for the first pieces where perspective was correctly demonstrated and that had a lot more impact on how we understand the world (geometry, optics and so on) than paint poured effectively in a purposely random way over a large plank of wood by a delusional alcoholic.
Pollock, being the most expensive will undoubtedly spark more controversy, especially because the art itself seems quite ‘artless’ at first glance. As for the others, I love Klimt (Schiele is much more interesting, though many people don’t even know his work), as I love the suicidal paint-eating Dutchman or Renoir’s small windows of life to the belle époque – but none of this art is worth that much money either.
You know what’s worth 147 million, perhaps – no, definitely- more-? The stuff at Lascaux and similar places all over the world where humans first decided to x-ray their thoughts; not because it’s old, but because its interpretation of the living animal in its raw power, beauty and intrinsic value as life in the form of nourishment is absolutely perfect. It was completely pure and required no effort at all on the part of the artist/storyteller to make it great. No study, no critics, just someone recording their thoughts and emotions with no intention other than express themselves and relay their reality to the future generations. Nowadays, the majority of artists are simply idiots who devise new ways to arrange trash and sell it for ridiculous amounts of money.
Reminds me of Homer Simpson, quick dry cement and a barbeque…
Know-it-alls, please stop trying to make people see how great something is when they choose not to like it, simply because it doesn’t speak to them. Yes, I’m talking about Pollock again. Don’t force it because it will never work.
The most famous painting in the world, La Gioconda, adored by so many people, even if they don’t know why they should adore it, considered to be so perfect and beautiful, doesn’t even have a balanced horizon line, the illusion of depth or a proper composition. The subject’s expression seems to be saying ‘finish the damned painting already, I have to pee’, but still it has spawned countless ridiculous fantasies and keeps on making people believe there’s some mystical meaning attached to it, when in truth, it’s just a picture of a rich guy’s wife which hung on the king’s bathroom for a while until he got fed up and got rid of it.
Art is what you make of it, and ‘This is not a pipe’, people…
January 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Renoir is amazing…the way he captures light in his paintings is a gift in itself…
January 9th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
modern ar of the last century is total crap and so one dimensional just like the people on here who actually are so stupid and ignorant to what real art is are..i really gag at what art has become and i blame it mostly on you modern admires of this useless pieces of trash..barffff
January 17th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Yes it doesn’t matter that people flip over Jackson Pollock, it’s all promotion – apart from the artistic merit which I think is in the stratosphere.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
105. veeman – “modern ar…so one dimensional…i really gag at what art has become and i blame it mostly on you modern admires of this useless pieces of trash…”
haha, you sound like the embittered octogenarians portrayed in TV “…simmer down, young rapscallions or I’ll wave my cane at you in an angry manner!!!…” Quite a big part of modern art movement seeks to address the physical aspects of painting…the physical brush, the plane of canvas… it’s not 1D as you claim but it also doesn’t attempt false illusions of 3 dimensionality. Can’t remember who said it but it was something along the lines of ‘Art is a reflection of what we see and this is what I see’ paint, brush, canvas rather than realistic portrayal of the scenery around him.
Randall made a good point about the Pollack whiners saying “I could have done this.” but hadn’t. One thing I’d like to add is if you were painting at the same time or before Pollack, would you have done this FIRST? The fact that he went against the stream is what makes him notable. And please educate yourself before making assumptions on ANY artwork (this is not directed at anyone in particular). Pollack did not simply fling paint willy-nilly… look at videos of him at work and you’ll see every single drop was placed specifically where it’s put. Stare at the man and you can literally see the synapses firing at lightening speed. There was a method to his madness. Lammy (96) said it best when seeing a Pollack that visually wasn’t pretty but he/she was transfixed, nonetheless.
Art quality isn’t owned by duration. In fact, many of my former professors made us partake in speed drills – five minute sketches, a game unfortunately named “exquisite corpse” in which one person gets 30 seconds to draw and passes it on to another person who compounds upon the previous drawing and so forth, drawing with your opposite hand, etc. – so we could hone our skills. Some work produced in five minutes can look as refined as those that took five years.
That’s my comments on the comments. As far as the list goes… I don’t think any of these are worth the millions. It’s all subjective based on the skill of the art manager, the hype/fever of art buyers, and quite a bit on the inflated ego of the artist (not necessarily for these artists since many like van Gogh never saw a dime). In school, they broke down art pricing to cost of materials + (wage you would put for your labor x number of hours spent on work) + …for lack of better phrase ’sentimental value’ of work. The fancier art market being as pretentious as it is has made some artists think it’s ok to grossly overprice their work. Posted a story along those lines in another art list.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
That is amazing!! I have not read all of the comments, but do you realize that most of them are on Pollock’s paintings? I think that many of the greatest artists were not understood or appreciated by a wide audience? It is nice to see that great discussion and confusion he made with his art.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 am
140 mil for Woman III is just silly. Why ? What’s so special about that painting ? Crazy. And if Saito had destroyed the paintings, he would have gone down in history as one of the biggest idiots who ever lived. What an ego. (shudder)
March 5th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Numbers one, two, and seven are the ugliest things that have ever cursed my eyes. I wouldn’t pay a nickel for ‘em.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Hey, an item is ‘worth’ exactly what you can get some damn fool with too much money to pay for it. Art- like beauty is in the eye of the beholder- thats how we wind up with 3 holer outhouse seats hanging on museum walls.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:33 am
A three year old could have painted number 1.
It required no real talent at all unlike every other painting on here.
March 27th, 2009 at 9:25 am
number 1 and 2 paintings are dissapointing because they look not very artistic. The last painting on the list looks like a preschooler trying to paint thats how easy it is
April 1st, 2009 at 7:41 pm
lol, its quite obvious from your comments, non of you kids know anything of art, and i doubt any of you are artists. any Pollock haters out there are, excuse my french, Dumbshits. Pollock was brilliant, and anyone out there who thinks they can pull off what he did, i fuckin dare you. you will be on the edge of sanity after having thrown out your 37th canvas just tryin to get anywhere near his brilliance. i pitty you young ones, and i can only assume you kids are young, otherwise the comments would be better and more appreciative. and none of them were scam artists. lol “it looks like a preschooler did it”
April 8th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
what a bunch of mouthbreathers. morons who make fun of art they say could have been done by a child are lucky they haven’t used up God’s wrath yet. a bunch of feeble minded rednecks with giant sticks up their ass.
dear lord, this bunch of posts is like taking a walk down a dirt road in white socks. you just cannot remain unaffected by the idiocy.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Ay sus sagi man kamo inaway ya man….PEACE men …Peace…what we are going to do…we should respect the Art to each in everyone for those who have made critisism..and for those who got offended just understand them..will no ones got perfect…REMEMBER ARTIST MUST BE HUMBLE , UNDERSTANDING, HAVE PATIENCE AND FRIENDLY. I… thank you….Let’s share our talents and skills not hatred and bad works…LET US KEEP THE GOD WORK….amen
May 11th, 2009 at 1:09 am
P.S…..Just understand my english..grammar…hehehe…
enjoy life…because life is so short…good luck to all artist.
May 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Visited the art gallery yesterday and spent a good bulk of my time hanging out with a Pollack. Before discounting him, I’d suggest people see one IN PERSON first. Images on computer or in books don’t do it (and many other artworks) justice.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:17 am
I posted this comment in response to people insulting Picasso’s painting abilities. If you knew anything about him you would know that he was a child prodigy and could paint better than most artists of the time when he was 14.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:54 am
I really like Van Gogh’s artworks especially “Starry,starry night” which he painted when he was at the asylum and nearly blind. Love it!
July 13th, 2009 at 3:25 am
Can someone tell me why No.1 was bought for so much money? I mean its a stretch to even call it abstract, it looks like a photo someone took of some inner city highway underpass.
Maybe I’m just an unartistic buffoon.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:08 am
The price of number one may be so much due to the popularity of the artist, as well as some of the others…just saying.
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
Sorry if I’m late to the discussion, but to express my opinion:
From a poetic point of view (because most modern art is EXPRESSING instead of DEPICTING), these paintings (yes, even the Pollock one) ARE valid.
From my point of view, I don’t really found much to like in Pollocks or Rothkos since they’re so sad. For most that Pollock doesn’t mean nothing, but I honestly think it’s unlikely that many other paintings can express so much of the tension that build up in the century of World War one and two. But there’s a but: so much negative energy is a no-no for me. In the 20th century, art has learned to express/create and not just depict, but for the viewers there’s one big thing: art has learned to make you think. Running between most traditional paintings, you really don’t have to think to recognise what are the objects/persons/landscapes depicted… Now I think that after losing the connection with the public, art has to learn to reestablish somehow that connection. After being so serious and mind-bending, art probably needs something else. There are lots of neodadaists these days painting completely white paintings and making sculptures out of elephant shit (sorry for the expression), but how many are actually bringing up POSITIVE ENERGY, how many actually express the joy of living and not the pain of it? My favourite painter is Joan Miro – even among the Surrealist painters, I think there’s no one investing as much positive energy as Miro (of course, he also invests some anguish, mostly in the form of spiders which occur in several of his paintings, but rarely his paintings have a total lack of positive energy). And, ironically, he is, as Breton puts it, “the most Surrealist of us all” – painting automatically until he dies, while Dali, for instance, has surrealistic ideas but paints the old-fashioned way.
But, to put an end to this long comment, positive energy is rarely to be found in large quantities in European/North-American art, I guess. A certain auctions site that I regularly visit held at some point an auction with paintings by contemporary artists from Congo and Senegal. What a HUGE difference between all those paintings, which almost always have LOTS of vibrant colours, and the usual Romanian paintings from other auctions, which have most often dusty colours… but it is really not just about the colours. Conclusion? African/Caraibbean/Brazilian/whatever arts are where it’s at.
August 28th, 2009 at 8:39 am
If every single Jackson Pollock painting caught fire and burned to ashes, I, for one, would do a little dance.
Crud of the highest order.
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 am
i thought i would see the Mona Lisa here o.o i guess not.
among the 10 i like renoir’s the best and the irises by van gogh <3
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:04 am
All of those you saying that a child could paint like Pollock, just shut your mouths, OK? Don’t understand art, don’t comment on it. Try to read something about Abstract Expressionism and try to think a while about what you see, instead of criticizing and admiring only what tries to resemble reality. Of course, you don’t value a paint by its cost but bear in mind–Pollock was a genius, and so was Renoir.
September 3rd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
@ #126, Malan; you’re right. It’s those people who don’t know anything about the history of art , that think like that. They say things like that, because they see the millions. First money, then why so much money and THEN they see the artwork.
It’s the guy or woman that gave so much money for it, not that it is worth that kind of money. Some of you say Mona Lisa: but Mona Lisa isn’t for sale, that’s why it isn’t on this list I suppose.. I bet that there are a lot more paintings and artwork that wealthy people would pay a lot more for, if it is for sale.
Stupid people think that pollocks painting is the most expensive one, no, it is a painting which someone wanted to pay so much money for and it happens to be 142,7 million.
Why don’t people think a little bit harder. Lazy?
BTW: “artist” with no imagination paint things we so can see: happy trees, clouds, potraits, or even circles and lines, but artist with imagination, fantasy and creativity put everything in a personal concept, a personal style. Every artist have to be his own style. Like architects, and chefs with their cookings. Ok, if you want to sell, you have to make something potential buyers would like, but did pollock think of that when he “painted” his , well, paintings? And howww boring if you make things that like everybody would like. Like cooking things you found in a cookbook is interesting: well, no it isn’t.
BTW: sorry for my English language.. I’m from Belgium, English is my 4th language, that’s why it is so poor.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:25 am
What kind of people spend their time looking at pantings all day, seriously, you should really join a Wikia community.
October 25th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Just look at Dr. Gachet, wishing that he could spend more time on the internet. But, he was probably to busy PAINTING and helping his patients because they were all so SICK of artwork.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I’m just going to assume No.1 is a joke and leave it at that.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am
I hoped that a Modigliani would be included. Some of them, I wouldn’t use even as a wallpaper. A painting doesn’t have to be totally realistic but there are limits..
November 14th, 2009 at 4:13 am
I wanted to auction my paintings about hidden secret scientific reality of the human mind near to 100% could you please contact me ?
November 30th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Oh my. I can make my own #1 painting! (Kidding)
November 30th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
my dog can paint better than those….go figure
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
.Putting a value on art immediately destroys the arts integrity. It’s the salesmen, the bullshit and the sycophants associated with the world that makes it ugly…
December 30th, 2009 at 2:46 am
MEERRRRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR…PEACE TO EACH IN EVERYONE,.
December 30th, 2009 at 2:49 am
hello…happy new year to all. ho ho ho….
January 11th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
My 2 year old nephew couldve done no. 1…
February 9th, 2010 at 2:58 am
Art is the process of creation, when the creation has artistic forethought.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Man you people saying that you could recreate these pieces are just really wrong. Pollock had a technique involved with his work. It wasn’t just simply “splattering” paint on canvas. You can search up his technique which by the way took great patience and concentration. Then there’s the people who say Pollock’s work was so effortless and unimaginative that not even Pollock himself could recreate his own work. Well isn’t that a good thing? Something that not even the original creator can emulate is called great “originality” in my world. God you people are so naive.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
@nicoleredz3 (138):
Not in a million years.