[Dewman]

I suppose there is some merit in that old saw.... but, for the life of me, I just cannot get a grip on someone paying $140 million for this.... um.... "painting." Whenever I can't tell if it's right-side up or up-side down..... well..... I think I could find something a little more practical to spend my millions on.


"A classic "drip" picture by Jackson Pollock is believed to have become the world's most expensive painting after it was sold in America by the Hollywood entertainment mogul David Geffen for $140 million (£75 million).



In a private deal brokered by Sotheby's, the painting 'No.5, 1948', has been bought by David Martinez, a Mexican financier

---

Last edited by Dewman; 08-05-2017 at 04:10 PM.

[dsmithhfx]

According to this wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings#List_of_highest_prices_paid the sale you are referring to occurred in 2006, and has been topped several times, including two that went last year for $300-million each. Art world valuations are much like real estate in that they are viewed primarily as investment vehicles and trophies, over any intrinsic artistic merit they may/not have. An amazing number are later exposed as forgeries.

[Rupert]

Dewman, you have seen this before, no doubt, and I would never sell it...but can you guestimate what you think it might bring at a big fancy art auction?

I'd need a fancy name for it...any ideas there? I call it "Boy Fishin'-Cow Leavin'" but you might have something more aristocratic for it?



It was one of my earlier works, but I still like it! I can almost hear that cow, it is so realistic...."I'm outta here!"

Regards!

[slowpez]

Dewman, you have seen this before, no doubt, and I would never sell it...but can you guestimate what you think it might bring at a big fancy art auction?

I'd need a fancy name for it...any ideas there? I call it "Boy Fishin'-Cow Leavin'" but you might have something more aristocratic for it?



It was one of my earlier works, but I still like it! I can almost hear that cow, it is so realistic...."I'm outta here!"

Regards!

"Mooooooooooo've Over #7"

[Dewman]

Dewman, you have seen this before, no doubt, and I would never sell it...but can you guestimate what you think it might bring at a big fancy art auction?

I'd need a fancy name for it...any ideas there? I call it "Boy Fishin'-Cow Leavin'" but you might have something more aristocratic for it?



It was one of my earlier works, but I still like it! I can almost hear that cow, it is so realistic...."I'm outta here!"

Regards!

Why, that is a perfect example of "escapeism" at it's finest, Rupert! Anyone with a taste for fine art could recognize that immediately! As far as value? How could one possibly place a monetary value on something as monumental as that? It's..... well..... it's..... priceless! That's what it is! Far better than anything Pollack ever "dripped"!

[PJ1]

Well, we got "Blue Poles" (formerly known as No. 11, 1952) in 1973 for the bargain price of $1.3 million (AUD). It hangs in our National Gallery in Canberra. It is supposed to be one of its most popular exhibits, but that is probably just morbid curiosity. There was a huge outcry at the time over spending so much (OK - it was forty-three years ago) on what most people did not think qualified as art. We could probably sell it now and pay off the national debt !!

[timb64]

At the risk of getting political(and banned!)at least "art" ,whatever form it takes,is a fairly benign waste of money.

[Just1MoreDave]

Both those guys were multi-billionaires, so $140 million is only a little more than pocket change. They probably have trouble finding new things to buy, while the money piles up. At least with this, you can hang it in one of your many houses, and your guests can say "oh, a Pollock." Your decorator can use it as a theme for the room.

I think Ricoh paid $125 million for Pentax. So for slightly less, you could have your name below the rear LCD and have people pleading to you for an uncrippled mount.

[clackers]

It's an investment, the guy's dead, there ain't gonna be any more.

Picasso did nearly 2000 paintings, Vermeer wasn't considered a treasure in his lifetime so only 30 of his survive - they must be incredibly valuable.

[PJ1]

It's an investment, the guy's dead, there ain't gonna be any more.

Good point. Years ago, one of my works was stolen from an art show. I guess they are sipping their scotch now and thinking "He can't last much longer". Or maybe it is in a Lifeline store with a $2 price tag on it. Not all of us are destined fame. But for $140 million I would not just drip paint. I would ooze it out of every pore.

[Rupert]

"Mooooooooooo've Over #7"

Why, that is a perfect example of "escapeism" at it's finest, Rupert!

I'm not selling of course, but If I ever do I am giving anything over $5 mil to Dewman and Susan to split. Plus a $500K bonus to Susan for that superb title that would make all the difference!

I don't do much artwork nowadays, at my age it just drains me...the intense concentration and mental fatigue are almost more than I can handle.

When I am pretty sure I am on my last leg in this world, I may donate it to you and Susan......if you promise not to fight over it?

Regards!

[Ex Finn.]

.the intense concentration and mental fatigue are almost more than I can handle.

Have you tried eating some peanuts, they are full of energy!

[monochrome]

I think Ricoh paid $125 million for Pentax. So for slightly less, you could have your name below the rear LCD and have people pleading to you for an uncrippled mount.

And then you would be immortalized in a never-ending thread about nothing.

[boriscleto]

And then you would be immortalized in a never-ending thread about nothing.

Eventually it will become a thread about cheese.

[jyndi]

Well, we got "Blue Poles" (formerly known as No. 11, 1952) in 1973 for the bargain price of $1.3 million (AUD). It hangs in our National Gallery in Canberra. It is supposed to be one of its most popular exhibits, but that is probably just morbid curiosity. There was a huge outcry at the time over spending so much (OK - it was forty-three years ago) on what most people did not think qualified as art. We could probably sell it now and pay off the national debt !!

When I was in school, one of our excursions was to the Gallery and yep, we all had to troop past "Blue Poles". I think I was outlier in that I actually liked it. Not sure why, but I found it appealing, much more so in person than in any of the photos of it that I have seen. Which then leaves me pondering the challenges of taking photos of paintings. Not just to reproduce the colours, but to give an impression of the texture and to capture something of the 'presense' a painting can have. Although, that might be super challenging when one considers the size. An itty bitty picture on screen or even a decent sized print just can't reproduce the visual impact of something "212.1 cm × 488.9 cm (83.5 in × 192.5 in)" in size.