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.
#1 and #2 are you kidding me????? Save your money.
Some of those are horribly ugly. People will pay for anything.
Surprising that there isn’t a Freida Kahlo on there.
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
i think people dont actually spend lots of money for the painting, its the story behind it dat makes it bankable.
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.
No Dali?
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!
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…
If only Vincent Van Gogh can read this article. Tsk tsk!
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!!
LOVE IS AN ART BUT EXPRESS BY THE HEART. I
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
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.
hehehe..hahahahaha..hoohohoho…makes me laugh….thats life..and this is now the art of our life….hehehehe..hahahaah ..hohohoho…
never pay that much
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!
i thought the monalisa would feature..but what is the most expensive painting as of 2008
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..
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
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 *****/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.
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.
I should rather say nr 1 forms a *****-like appearance.
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 bull*****.” 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.
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
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.
modern art is overrated. I love art and all, but 142 mil is way too much to pay for ANYTHING done by Jackson Pollock.
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
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?
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.
“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.
The paintings aren’t my style but there still good
I am homeless
homeless: ah – then you will probably find this list useful: Top 10 things you need to survive the streets.
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.
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.
Hey Artman!
Thanks so much for the link, I fell in love with Jack Vettriano’s work!!!
xxxx
Prax
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 %)
“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.;)
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
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!
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!
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…
Renoir is amazing…the way he captures light in his paintings is a gift in itself…
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
Numbers one, two, and seven are the ugliest things that have ever cursed my eyes. I wouldn’t pay a nickel for ‘em.
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.
A three year old could have painted number 1.
It required no real talent at all unlike every other painting on here.
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
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, Dumb*****s. Pollock was brilliant, and anyone out there who thinks they can pull off what he did, i *****in 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”
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.
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
P.S…..Just understand my english..grammar…hehehe…
enjoy life…because life is so short…good luck to all artist.
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.
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.
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!