Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

wub · Post by **wub** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:11 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/ ... ecord.html

The large-scale work soared to $86,882,500, breaking the artist's record of $72.84 million and eclipsing the $86.3 million paid for Francis Bacon's 'Triptych', 1976, in 2008 as the most expensive post-war artwork at auction.

Um...whut?

Electric_Head · Post by **Electric_Head** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:13 am

Wow, it`s so detailed.

Shum · Post by **Shum** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:13 am

Don't be hatin' on Mark Rothko.

wub · Post by **wub** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:16 am

Not hating the art.

Slight issue with the amount paid for it.

Shum · Post by **Shum** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:23 am

Merely a reflection of the wealth that exists these days I suppose.

Fuck I would love a Rothko though.

Electric_Head · Post by **Electric_Head** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:31 am

Shum wrote:Merely a reflection of the wealth that exists these days I suppose.

Things like this make me feel ill at the sheer gluttony/greed involved.
How can anyone justify spending that much on canvas and paint?
It just seems a bit pointless when you consider the amount of poverty around.

kirky · Post by **kirky** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:37 am

i don't care who it's by, it looks shit.

kirky · Post by **kirky** » Fri May 11, 2012 7:39 am

Rothko has some very nice pieces though.

Why is it called Orange, red, yellow.
Looks more like - orange, orange, then a gold?. Unless the reds referring the background.. looks more pink to me though.

karmacazee · Post by **karmacazee** » Fri May 11, 2012 8:31 am

fassyman · Post by **fassyman** » Fri May 11, 2012 8:38 am

just google imaged him and every single one of his paintings look the same

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... 8QPekpn3Cg

Shum · Post by **Shum** » Fri May 11, 2012 8:47 am

His older surrealist stuff is quite different (and not nearly as good imo) from the later "multiform" pieces that everyone really loves him for.

exfox · Post by **exfox** » Fri May 11, 2012 8:55 am

Shum wrote:Don't be hatin' on Mark Rothko.

jameshk · Post by **jameshk** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:00 am

Surely its the oneup-manship that they're paying a ridiculous amount for it rather than the actual quality of the artwork itself. It's a status symbol. Shame that so much money gets wasted on crazy stuff like this and doesn't go towards things that will help people.

Basstronomer · Post by **Basstronomer** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:02 am

Ridiculous

Pedro Sánchez · Post by **Pedro Sánchez** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:02 am

Paying for Bacon.

Shum · Post by **Shum** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:03 am

Electric_Head wrote:
Shum wrote:Merely a reflection of the wealth that exists these days I suppose.
Things like this make me feel ill at the sheer gluttony/greed involved.
How can anyone justify spending that much on canvas and paint?
It just seems a bit pointless when you consider the amount of poverty around.

Hopefully the person who copped the painting has the same philanthropic spirit of it's previous owner.

Johnlenham · Post by **Johnlenham** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:14 am

Is this the same guys work the caused such an uproar at the time that someone attacked one of his paintings with an axe?

wub · Post by **wub** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:19 am

Johnlenham wrote:Is this the same guys work the caused such an uproar at the time that someone attacked one of his paintings with an axe?

Were they screaming "DO YOU READ SUTTER CAIN?" at the time?

Electric_Head · Post by **Electric_Head** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:24 am

Shum wrote:
Electric_Head wrote:
Shum wrote:Merely a reflection of the wealth that exists these days I suppose.
Things like this make me feel ill at the sheer gluttony/greed involved.
How can anyone justify spending that much on canvas and paint?
It just seems a bit pointless when you consider the amount of poverty around.
Hopefully the person who copped the painting has the same philanthropic spirit of it's previous owner.

Hopefully

arktrix45hz · Post by **arktrix45hz** » Fri May 11, 2012 9:26 am

wub wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/ ... ecord.html

The large-scale work soared to $86,882,500, breaking the artist's record of $72.84 million and eclipsing the $86.3 million paid for Francis Bacon's 'Triptych', 1976, in 2008 as the most expensive post-war artwork at auction.

Um...whut?

Dun kno the chicken tonight sizzle n stir jar!

Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Re: Most expensive piece of (post-war) art...

Who is online