Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

[Joseph O'Neil]

I actually like Gursky's work. For for what it is worth, how about this old quote:

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
Publilius Syrus (~100 BC)

still, 4.3 million for *any* photograph, no matter who, what, where or how, just seems unreal to me. Insane actually. I love art, and congrats for Gursky for pulling down that kind of coin, but I still think that kind of money for art is insane. For the record, I also think that 40 or 50 million for a Van Gogh "sunflower" painting is insane too.

One reason I think that way is, IMO, art should be out there for everyone to see and enjoy. But if you are spending millions on a single piece of art, your first inclination is to lock the artwork up in a nuke proof vault of some kind so that it never gets ruined or stolen. Then I think to myself, if art can never be seen, what true value does it really have?

[Jay DeFehr]

Joseph,

Davinci's Mona Lisa is one of the most highly valued works in the world, and has been seen by millions of people from every country on earth, over centuries. Most great works are owned by institutions, and displayed for public viewing- in a well secured environment, no doubt, but not hidden in a dark vault, unseen by human eyes.

I wonder why so many seem to harbor such communal attitudes toward art, but not other products? I guess it's a start.

[John NYC]

Four million is to 25 billion as one is to 6250.

If that is as far as you are taking the analysis then you won't get the point of what I am saying.

[Brian C. Miller]

... For the record, I also think that 40 or 50 million for a Van Gogh "sunflower" painting is insane too.

"Thurston, whatever shall we buy to go with the new island we purchased?"
"Why, Lovey, what about that French palace you liked so much? We'll have it moved over, and put some of our Rembrandts and Van Goghs in it."
"Do you really think that palace will go well with Iceland?"

"Money, money, money ... it's a rich man's world!"

-- Brian "who bought the unlicensed paint-by-the-numbers Van Gogh kit on sale" Miller

[E. von Hoegh]

If that is as far as you are taking the analysis then you won't get the point of what I am saying.

I was just making a simple ratio. I think I understand your point quite well.

I

[Brian C. Miller]

Heard on the radio:

tim
pasadena, ca

Listen, ah, something clicked off in my head as I was listening to you tonight. I'm an artist and I'm a rather well-known artist, and I speak on the subject of art and what's happened to art. And, in, something just clicked tonight when you were talking about making things, over-making things, and making it less and less valuable. See, one of the things that happened when the arts changed about a hundred years ago, and they changed drastically with the Picaso-ization of art, um, is, is it was very easy to produce, and it was only valuable through promotion, i.e., Tom Wolf's book, "The Painted Word," which, which points this out very clearly. And, and so it was actually a lot of art that was intrinsically worthless. When for thousands of years we had uh extremely difficult art to produce and it was always very valuable. And and I it just clicked in my head tonight when you were talking about this I was thinking of Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" and that had to do with architecture but I think, uh, think one of the things that's happening is there are forces, as you're always saying, George, they're sort of working together whether they know it or not because I believe this this what's happened in this philosophical realm of art has affected values of things. So people so it legitimizes getting something for nothing. Because a lot of what's done in the arts is nothing, and and and certain, small amount of people it's very small get an awful lot of money for it.

So: The promotion of easily producible art leads to junk art. Therefore, the promotion of difficult to produce art should lead to fine art.

[gevalia]

Man I just love these conversations. You're all right and you're all wrong. No, one of you is right, you there, it's you.

[Brian Ellis]

I actually like Gursky's work. For for what it is worth, how about this old quote:

Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.
Publilius Syrus (~100 BC)

still, 4.3 million for *any* photograph, no matter who, what, where or how, just seems unreal to me. Insane actually. I love art, and congrats for Gursky for pulling down that kind of coin, but I still think that kind of money for art is insane. For the record, I also think that 40 or 50 million for a Van Gogh "sunflower" painting is insane too.

One reason I think that way is, IMO, art should be out there for everyone to see and enjoy. But if you are spending millions on a single piece of art, your first inclination is to lock the artwork up in a nuke proof vault of some kind so that it never gets ruined or stolen. Then I think to myself, if art can never be seen, what true value does it really have?

Once again into the breach - "liking" it is beside the point for someone considering a purchase of a work of art for many millions of dollars. When an individual pays that kind of money for a work of art they're usually doing so as an investment pure and simple, little different than investing in stocks, bonds, real estate, whatever. They're not interested in actually looking at it. Do you like to look at the print-out of your book-entry stock purchases or the deeds to your real estate?

[dperez]

FWIW I'm not criticizing Gursky's success. I am criticizing the notion that a collector would pay that much for a photograph.
If you had that much money burning a hole in your pocket, would you spend it all on a photograph?
Why?

Yea I get your point. I guess if one has 4 million for a print, then they must have a lot more where that came from. It's just a drop in the bucket.

-DP

[John NYC]

Man I just love these conversations. You're all right and you're all wrong. No, one of you is right, you there, it's you.

What is your point exactly? This is a discussion forum, so it is natural that discourse takes place here. And it is natural that not everyone is going to have the same opinion.