Top 10 Most Expensive Paintings

1. 1. Blogball - 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.

2. 2. JMurf - 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’

3. 3. Monkey - 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.

4. 4. JOE ROSSON - 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.

5. 5. rp - 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.

6. 6. rp - 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.

7. 7. Kelsi - 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.

8. 8. jfrater - 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.

9. 9. deedee0323 - 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.

10. 10. DanOhh - November 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Renoir and Van Gough were master artists. Picasso, Kooning and Pollock scam artists.

11. 11. Randall - 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.

12. 12. Randall - 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.

13. 13. jfrater - 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.

14. 14. Shabab - 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.

15. 15. rp - 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.

16. 16. evan - 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.....-painting/

17. 17. Randall - 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.

18. 18. Atom - November 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm

    Gustav Klimt is amazing.

19. 19. Shabab - 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.

20. 20. rp - 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.

21. 21. JMurf - 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

22. 22. Hobolad - 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.

23. 23. jay - 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?

24. 24. Binglebore - 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.

25. 25. mix2323 - November 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    Binglebore: yea no kidding i could do something like that too

26. 26. JMurf - November 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    Its a load of pollocks

27. 27. rp - 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.

28. 28. Samiam - 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.

29. 29. Kelsi - November 7th, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    JMurf: I think that amused me way too much for only being so few words.

30. 30. StewWriter - 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.

31. 31. trebek - 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.

32. 32. Sid - 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?

33. 33. Yarr - 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.)

34. 34. dangorironhide - 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’

35. 35. dangorironhide - 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?

36. 36. Mr. Mojo - 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.

37. 37. Randall - 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.

38. 38. DiscHuker - November 8th, 2007 at 7:53 am

    this list is a joke. where is bob ross?
    http://www.lexx.gr/wp-content/.....238486.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.

39. 39. evan - 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

40. 40. Randall - 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?

41. 41. DiscHuker - November 8th, 2007 at 8:11 am

    whoa. looks like that hit a nerve.

42. 42. Randall - 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….”

43. 43. jfrater - 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/.....ometti.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/.....0Munch.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.

44. 44. JMurf - 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

45. 45. jfrater - 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.

46. 46. Yarr - 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

47. 47. StewWriter - November 8th, 2007 at 11:44 am

    Sid: 5 1/2, why?

48. 48. Randall - November 8th, 2007 at 11:56 am

    Jmurf: No no, wasn’t referring to you. Jfrater was right, it was directed at poster #23.

49. 49. JMurf - November 8th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    alright thanks for clearing that up.

    Anyone else hate Warhol too?

50. 50. Randall - 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.

51. 51. Hobolad - 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?

52. 52. Yarr - 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…

53. 53. pollux|rees - November 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    Pollock??? 142,7 million!!?? What a fucking waste of money!!

54. 54. davo - 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

55. 55. SnowKid32 - 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.

56. 56. Artist from Kabankalan City Negros Occ. Phils. - 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

57. 57. sue - 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

58. 58. sue - January 10th, 2008 at 2:08 am

    i love number five

59. 59. Amber - January 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am

    Number one makes me want to barf..

60. 60. saplasaman - January 27th, 2008 at 3:08 am

    I just wonder that where da vinci or michealangelo is….

61. 61. Dylan - January 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am

    #1 and #2 are you kidding me????? Save your money.

62. 62. cryndigo - January 30th, 2008 at 10:21 am

    Some of those are horribly ugly. People will pay for anything.

63. 63. Satori - January 30th, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Surprising that there isn’t a Freida Kahlo on there.

64. 64. Kabankalanon - 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

65. 65. andie - 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.

66. 66. thereisonly1 - 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.

67. 67. Slummy - February 6th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

    No Dali?

68. 68. Keeney - 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!

69. 69. someone - 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…

70. 70. Draco - February 18th, 2008 at 3:26 am

    If only Vincent Van Gogh can read this article. Tsk tsk!

71. 71. Mei - 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!!

72. 72. Artist - March 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    LOVE IS AN ART BUT EXPRESS BY THE HEART. I

73. 73. Adrian Mark - 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

74. 74. jfrater - 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.

75. 75. Artist - 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…

76. 76. connor - April 4th, 2008 at 4:16 am

    never pay that much

77. 77. banj - 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!

78. 78. sultan - April 17th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    i thought the monalisa would feature..but what is the most expensive painting as of 2008

79. 79. haizel(gh) - 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..

80. 80. Artman - 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/aca.....ersIIm.jpg

81. 81. Artman - 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.

82. 82. Denis - 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.

83. 83. warningdontreadthis - May 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    I should rather say nr 1 forms a shit-like appearance.

84. 84. treypole - 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.

85. 85. artyurban - 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

86. 86. tori - 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.

87. 87. Girl - 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.

88. 88. AMS - 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/a.....-Paintings

89. 89. tophart - 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?

90. 90. Glowbug - 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.

91. 91. Silkcut - 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.

92. 92. tomasu - August 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    The paintings aren’t my style but there still good

93. 93. homeless - August 27th, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    I am homeless

94. 94. jfrater - 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.

95. 95. kashi - 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.

96. 96. Lammy - 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.

97. 97. Praxilla - 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

98. 98. Sky - 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 %)

Tell us what you think... [Commenting FAQ]