Painting of woman with great personality to fetch upwards of $17M

[dogjones]

Please tell me who is setting the value on this painting (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2866de5f-dfb8-450d-bdc4-1ad5517dafe7). Why is it worth this much? I am no aesthete - can someone enlighten me? I mean, the painter is still alive and everything!

Is the value of art subject to the whimsy of the uber-rich? Or is there a semblance of objective criteria to judge art?

[kerikiwi]

Like anything else, a painting is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. No more, no less.

[a_unique_person]

Please tell me who is setting the value on this painting (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2866de5f-dfb8-450d-bdc4-1ad5517dafe7). Why is it worth this much? I am no aesthete - can someone enlighten me? I mean, the painter is still alive and everything!

Is the value of art subject to the whimsy of the uber-rich? Or is there a semblance of objective criteria to judge art?

I think Freud is getting old now. Maybe they think he is just about to hop off the twig, and his paintings will jump in price?

[aggle-rithm]

My mother is a quasi-professional artist, having taken up painting after all her kids grew up and moved out. She was having trouble selling paintings, so she asked a successful artist what she was doing wrong. He told her something very surprising.

She wasn't asking for enough money.

If you sell a painting for $50, thinking perhaps "I'm a relative unknown so I'll sell my work cheap until the demand becomes greater", it is looked on as a piece of crap painted by a nobody. The same painting selling for $500 is suddenly fine art, and the offers come pouring in.

Well, maybe not pouring in. But it is easier to sell.

Strangely, the normal rules of supply and demand don't seem to apply in the art world.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Claus is of the opinion that all art is trying to sell something. I wonder if he will tell us what this painting is trying to sell?

[fuelair]

Talent and or sex with the art critics sells art (the art critics know the buyers and can influence purchases with their reviews). Though talent is less available, discerning buyers, non-buyers and critics sometimes do recognize it without help.

[Foolmewunz]

Claus is of the opinion that all art is trying to sell something. I wonder if he will tell us what this painting is trying to sell?


Hush, you!

[shadron]

I love the cute strategic positioning of the employee looking at the painting. I had thought that the British were somewhat beyond that.

[Dorian Gray]

Claus is of the opinion that all art is trying to sell something. I wonder if he will tell us what this painting is trying to sell?
Itself, for millions.

[athon]

Please tell me who is setting the value on this painting (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2866de5f-dfb8-450d-bdc4-1ad5517dafe7). Why is it worth this much? I am no aesthete - can someone enlighten me? I mean, the painter is still alive and everything!

Is the value of art subject to the whimsy of the uber-rich? Or is there a semblance of objective criteria to judge art?

I can't say for that painting, but as others have said art sells for whatever the buyer is willing to pay for it.

So the question could be more like 'why would somebody be willing to spend X on a painting?'

Honestly, because the art makes them feel something. The mark of a good artist is to connect with their audience emotionally through their medium. The more people who they connect with, the more likely it is they'll want it.

There could also be other factors which include the notoriety of the artist, the historical impact an artwork has had on other people, or even the influence they've had on other artists.

I agree there is a lot of art that doesn't appeal to me. I also can't understand how it would connect with any person. But if they're charging half a million for a splash of red on a canvas, and somebody is willing to purchase it, then I don't see how anybody is being conned. Best of luck to them.

Athon

[Loss Leader]

The only thing I'm certain of is that the buyer will not overpay for the painting. Whatever the buyer chooses to spend, that is the painting's value to him.

[quixotecoyote]

The only thing I'm certain of is that the buyer will not overpay for the painting. Whatever the buyer chooses to spend, that is the painting's value to him.

But what if it's a forger's identical reproduction of the item rather than the original paint on the original canvas? Does your certainty hold?

[Loss Leader]

But what if it's a forger's identical reproduction of the item rather than the original paint on the original canvas? Does your certainty hold?


No, my economic tautology assumes that no fraud is taking place.

[quixotecoyote]

No, my economic tautology assumes that no fraud is taking place.

I find it interesting that if you were the only one who knew it was a fraud, and you were an indisputable expert, you could change the value of the painting at will even though no other change would happen to the object itself or the situation surrounding it.

[kerikiwi]

So the question could be more like 'why would somebody be willing to spend X on a painting?'

Honestly, because the art makes them feel something.

There could also be other factors which include the notoriety of the artist, the historical impact an artwork has had on other people, or even the influence they've had on other artists.



You missed out the investment motive: hoping that someone will later be prepared to pay more.

[kerikiwi]

I find it interesting that if you were the only one who knew it was a fraud, and you were an indisputable expert, you could change the value of the painting at will even though no other change would happen to the object itself or the situation surrounding it.

I find it not so much interesting as laughable.
The art world is, by and large, a farce.

An art work is praised in all sorts of superlatives until it is discovered that it's not by who we thought it wasthen suddenly none of the previous praise holds true.

[athon]

You missed out the investment motive: hoping that someone will later be prepared to pay more.

Good point, however this is still based on the factors I pointed out. In order for you to purchase something you think will increase in value later, you'd need some sort of objective reason to think others would want to pay that.

Athon

[Loss Leader]

I find it interesting that if you were the only one who knew it was a fraud, and you were an indisputable expert, you could change the value of the painting at will even though no other change would happen to the object itself or the situation surrounding it.


And sometimes not even then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant).

In seriousness, your statement that no other change would happen to "the situation," is a bit disingenuous. Exposing something as a fake is a vast change to the situation. It's about the biggest change there could be. It's like saying that it's amazing that it's raining when a hurricane comes in even though there's been no other change to the weather.

[aggle-rithm]

What if the painter went back in time and gave himself a picture of the painting, so that the actual painting was a rote copy of the photograph instead of an original creation. Would it be worth anything then?

(If not, the time machine sure would be...)

[kerikiwi]

In seriousness, your statement that no other change would happen to "the situation," is a bit disingenuous. Exposing something as a fake is a vast change to the situation. It's about the biggest change there could be. It's like saying that it's amazing that it's raining when a hurricane comes in even though there's been no other change to the weather.

Being exposed as a fake has no effect on the quality of the work.
What was praised as a great work of art suddenly loses quality because of who the artist is.
Biggest change there could be?
Hardly. A bigger change would be if the work itself changed.

[CFLarsen]

Itself, for millions.

Ayup.

What price Mona Lisa?

I can't say for that painting, but as others have said art sells for whatever the buyer is willing to pay for it.

So the question could be more like 'why would somebody be willing to spend X on a painting?'

Honestly, because the art makes them feel something. The mark of a good artist is to connect with their audience emotionally through their medium. The more people who they connect with, the more likely it is they'll want it.

There could also be other factors which include the notoriety of the artist, the historical impact an artwork has had on other people, or even the influence they've had on other artists.

I agree there is a lot of art that doesn't appeal to me. I also can't understand how it would connect with any person. But if they're charging half a million for a splash of red on a canvas, and somebody is willing to purchase it, then I don't see how anybody is being conned. Best of luck to them.

Now you got it.

Good point, however this is still based on the factors I pointed out. In order for you to purchase something you think will increase in value later, you'd need some sort of objective reason to think others would want to pay that.

Luxuria, gula, avaritia, acedia, ira, invidia, superbia.

[athon]

Now you got it.

Seriously, Claus, don't derail this thread with your smugness. If you want to keep up with your 'all art sells something' nonsense, keep it in the other thread.

Athon

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Now you got it.

Do you ever get tired moving those goal posts around?

[quixotecoyote]

And sometimes not even then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_Giant).

In seriousness, your statement that no other change would happen to "the situation," is a bit disingenuous. Exposing something as a fake is a vast change to the situation. It's about the biggest change there could be. It's like saying that it's amazing that it's raining when a hurricane comes in even though there's been no other change to the weather.

I thought it was blatantly obvious that I meant 'No change than the change I spent the post talking about' but I guess I had to spell it out.

[CFLarsen]

Seriously, Claus, don't derail this thread with your smugness. If you want to keep up with your 'all art sells something' nonsense, keep it in the other thread.

Athon

Seriously, Athon, complain about derails to TCS. He brought it up.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Seriously, Athon, complain about derails to TCS. He brought it up.

Stick to the scenario.

[ktesibios]

Did anyone else look at the thread title and think of the Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fallen_Madonna) by van Clomp?

[Fnord]

I find it not so much interesting as laughable.
The art world is, by and large, a farce.

Farcical, yet pretentious, with a sense of entitlement among artists for their inflated opinions regarding their contribution to cultural evolution.

I may not know much about art, but I do know what I'd wipe myself with.

[hgc]

The history of art is replete with people outraged or mystified by what passes for art nowadays. It's about innovation more than anything else, and it's inevitable that the audience for innovation is relatively small. Of course that audience happens to have a lot of money to spend. Does wealth open one's mind, or is it just feeding on the costs a lot, gotta have it thing, a la Spitzer's super-expensive hooker?

[kittynh]

Our museums are full of fakes.

And many museums fight any serious investigation because it's not fun to find out that the statue you paid MILLIONS for is worth not a thing.

Happened to the Getty.

The historic context of a painting is important also. You could carve a statue as good as a Greek statue (if you were very very very talented) but it would not be an innovation, it would just be an immitation.

A Gilbert painting of Washington is better than a good painting of George Washington done now.

A David of Napoleon is more important than even the best painting of Napoleon done now.

Fake busting in the art world is something I was close to for a long time. Talk about a way to make yourself unpopular in the art world!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The history of art is replete with people outraged or mystified by what passes for art nowadays. It's about innovation more than anything else, and it's inevitable that the audience for innovation is relatively small.

The history of jazz is exactly the same.

[CFLarsen]

Fake busting in the art world is something I was close to for a long time. Talk about a way to make yourself unpopular in the art world!

Read this one?

Fake! (http://www.amazon.com/Fake-Story-Elmyr-Greatest-Forger/dp/0070320470)

[Gravy]

Read this one?

Fake! (http://www.amazon.com/Fake-Story-Elmyr-Greatest-Forger/dp/0070320470)Orson Welles' biography of Elmyr, F for Fake, is highly entertaining. Criterion has a good version of it. Clifford Irving, the Howard Hughes forger who wrote "Fake," is featured in the Welles movie.

Re the thread title, the prediction is 17 million pounds, or 36 million dollars. Interesting that it sold at auction for $52,500 in 2005. I wonder how much of this speculation is the auction house trying to drive the price up.

[CFLarsen]

Howard Hughes was a real person.

[Gravy]

Howard Hughes was a real person.You don't say!

[kerikiwi]

But Gravy, you said Hughes was a forgery.

[porch]

The art world is, by and large, a farce.

This is a sentiment I hear a lot. I would agree with that if you define the art world as the art collectors' market.

Overall, I wish art was more valued in society. At the same time, individual objects going for gigantic sums of money seems absurd. It's only slightly more ridiculous than the high salaries of some professional athletes.

Thankfully, the art world is larger than that. There have been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, people that make art regardless of commercial motives. There are a lot of people that sacrifice financial success because they think making art is more important. There is a great tension between art as a creative compulsion and art as collectible. Between those two extremes, art meets commerce in many different ways. Personally, I'm a big fan of album covers, novel jackets, magazine illustrations, tattoos, comic books . .. they're all products. I also think that Lucien Freud painting is really great, but I won't be able to afford it any time soon.

There's a lot of BS all around, but there is value to be found, too - as it is with most media.

[Dragoonster]

This is a sentiment I hear a lot. I would agree with that if you define the art world as the art collectors' market.

Overall, I wish art was more valued in society. At the same time, individual objects going for gigantic sums of money seems absurd. It's only slightly more ridiculous than the high salaries of some professional athletes.

Thankfully, the art world is larger than that. There have been, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, people that make art regardless of commercial motives. There are a lot of people that sacrifice financial success because they think making art is more important. There is a great tension between art as a creative compulsion and art as collectible. Between those two extremes, art meets commerce in many different ways. Personally, I'm a big fan of album covers, novel jackets, magazine illustrations, tattoos, comic books . .. they're all products. I also think that Lucien Freud painting is really great, but I won't be able to afford it any time soon.

There's a lot of BS all around, but there is value to be found, too - as it is with most media.

Good post. I think a lot of negative reaction is based on what you wrote though--a lot of the social value of art is inverse to its "salary". Take this painting, $36 million, with social benefit of what? It only benefits one person. If posters are made from it, that's independent of this single purchase.

I'm a comic book fan too, I'm guessing the average comic prints 50,000 or so copies, equalling 50,000 members of society enjoying the art. To widen the comparison even further, break the $36 million into annual comic salaries, let's go high and say they get $100k/annum, and include all creators--writer, inker, penciller, colorist, letterer. That $36 million would pay for 72 years of a comic! Or, 864 issues. Multiplied by 50,000 gives 43,200,000 people, or people-instances, of art enjoyment. And a larger positive impact on society, assuming its positive at all.

Of course, whoever is going to pay $36 million for the painting isn't going to instead use that to fund comic books. And the "fine" art world operates on its own economic scale or appreciation of value:signficance or whatever. And it may be simplistic to reduce social effect to equations, or even that a society should take predecence over an individual. But as a gut reaction, it's dissapointing and disgruntling to see that huge expense for one piece, vs. Artist Joe's relatively miniscule salary for art which affects more people. Course, if Artist Joe got $1,000,000 per comic issue he might soon retire--gotta keep them working I guess ;)

One disagreement (depending on the meaning of "slightly") I have with your post, if the above has any significance, is the salary of athletes. Despite their pay being outrageous on the face (let's say $11million for an NFL QB, or soccer forward for foreign readers), they affect millions upon millions of people, bring enjoyment, activity, and perhaps balancing some pyschological needs of society as a whole. I don't see that happening with this painting.

[jimtron]

Or is there a semblance of objective criteria to judge art?

It's mainly subjective, in my view. Of course, if enough people call something art, that will surely influence others to believe it is so.

Is the value of art subject to the whimsy of the uber-rich?
Yes. And curators, art gallery owners, art critics, etc.

[Tanstaafl]

My mother is a quasi-professional artist, having taken up painting after all her kids grew up and moved out. She was having trouble selling paintings, so she asked a successful artist what she was doing wrong. He told her something very surprising.

She wasn't asking for enough money.
<snip>


Well, this is a little off-topic, but...

Oddly enough, this also applies to other areas.

Once upon a time, I was working as a software consultant on a project that required a communications protocol to be used between several pieces of equipment located a mile or two apart from each other. The requirements were extremely stringent. No existing protocol could carry enough data at the required rates under the specified limitations. I tried to convince them that they needed to change the specifications, but they were adamant. The specs were cast in concrete.

So I spent a week or two working up a specialized protocol. By distilling the data down to the bare essentials and stripping out all non-essential parts of message headers, plus inventing a couple of entirely new widgets, I came up with a protocol that would just barely do the job.

Around that time another consultant started on the project. I had known him previously and knew that he was a very sharp guy, so I had him look over my protocol. His conclusion was that it wouldn't work, not because he could find a flaw in it, but just because it was too complex, and he felt there was bound to be a hidden flaw in there somewhere.

Shortly thereafter, he convinced them to change the specification so that a standard protocol could be used. I asked how he managed that, and he assured me that it was easy. Why was it easy for him, but impossible for me?

His answer: Because he charged more money. That's why they would listen to him, while I was rebuffed when I presented the exact same arguments.

[ponderingturtle]

I can't say for that painting, but as others have said art sells for whatever the buyer is willing to pay for it.

So the question could be more like 'why would somebody be willing to spend X on a painting?'

Honestly, because the art makes them feel something. The mark of a good artist is to connect with their audience emotionally through their medium. The more people who they connect with, the more likely it is they'll want it.


Also the likelyhood that someone in the future will pay n*x where n>1.

[ponderingturtle]

The only thing I'm certain of is that the buyer will not overpay for the painting. Whatever the buyer chooses to spend, that is the painting's value to him.

I don't think that is accuate, I think there is a lot of speculation in such art.