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.
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.
Wanted to puke after seeing no.8 and no.2 . Can’t imagine why someone would wanna buy them.
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’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 bull*****.
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.
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.
Renoir and Van Gough were master artists. Picasso, Kooning and Pollock scam artists.
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.
The world is already ugly, why would I want to look at something that resembles it? I don't need anyone else to show me or make me feel how the world is a complete *****. Because I already know and understand what it is. Because I live in it and I see it everyday. I want to see beauty. Something that would please my eyes and my soul and not something that would further remind me of the ugly world I live in.
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.
Randall: done – the editing is playing up at the moment – I will need to look in to it this weekend.
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.
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.
“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/
I have Jimi Hendrix plays montery video tape. In the3 beginning Denny Dent performs his art to the song "Can You Hear Me" and finishes Jimi's portrait by the end of the song. Denny was a great artist performer.
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.
Gustav Klimt is amazing.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Binglebore: yea no kidding i could do something like that too
Its a load of pollocks
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.
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.
JMurf: I think that amused me way too much for only being so few words.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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’
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 ***** 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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
whoa. looks like that hit a nerve.
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….”
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.
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
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.
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
Sid: 5 1/2, why?
Jmurf: No no, wasn’t referring to you. Jfrater was right, it was directed at poster #23.
alright thanks for clearing that up.
Anyone else hate Warhol too?
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.
Cool post there Randall.
As an aside- can anyone else see Henry VIII in the Pollack one? Or just me?
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 ***** (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…
Pollock??? 142,7 million!!?? What a *****ing waste of money!!
none of them are worth that amount of money, my kindergarten pictures are better than all of them!! seriously
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.
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
somehow i thought the monalisa and lilies in a pond or watever would be there.there the only famous notable paintings i know
i love number five
Number one makes me want to barf..
I just wonder that where da vinci or michealangelo is….