Dubstepforum.com

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?

Wow, it`s so detailed.

Don't be hatin' on Mark Rothko.

Not hating the art.

Slight issue with the amount paid for it.

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

Fuck I would love a Rothko though.

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.

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

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.

Why?

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

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

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

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

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.

Ridiculous

Paying for Bacon.

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.

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

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?

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

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!