Monday, August 13, 2007

Zee tres expensive

.






It is about time...

Art. It is only worth as much as someone will pay for it. The top picture, is the highest priced painting to ever be sold at a staggering $135 million. It was looted by the Nazi's in WWII and was painted by Gustav Klimt in 1907. It was purchased in 2006 by R.S. Lauder, the cosmetics king.
Sitting at number 2
Garcon a la Pipe- Pablo Picasso 104.1 million
3. Dora Maar with Cat- Pablo Picasso 95.2 million
4. Portrait of Dr. Gachet- Vincent van Gogh 82.5 million. This one was interesting because the Japanese businessman who had paid over 80 mil for it in 1996 wanted to be cremated with it when he died. He loved it immensely. Somehow it was saved.
5. Bal Au Moulin de la Galette- Pierre-Auguste Renoir. 78 million. I like this one.
6. Massacre of the Innocents- Peter Paul Rubens 76.7 million. ( pictured above ) It was painted in 1611.
7. Portrait de l'Artiste sans Barbe- Vincent van Gogh. 71.5 million. A selt portrait without the beard.
8. Rideau, Cruchon et Compotier- Paul Cezanne 60.5 million.
9. Femme aux Bras Croises- Pablo Picasso a paltry 55 million.
10. Irises- Vincent van Gogh
Also pictured below is the painting titled No. 5, by Jackson Pollock. It is rumoured to be on the verge of selling for a whopping $140 million which would place it firmly in first place. If you ever get the chance to visit Canberra, I urge you to check out Pollock's Blue Poles which is exhibited in the National Gallery of Australia.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

chankslee,
I'm surprised to see you take this stance. This is an extremely convincing argument about how pathetic many rich people are.
If people with money had any real understanding of art, then of course a painting would be most expensive while the artist was still alive. It would gradually depreciate in value as time passed after the artist had passed away. The fact is, though, that rich people want artists to remain poor. This social trend solidifies the power that money has to control and dominate our lives. A smart, rich power-monger would be very good at ridiculing the works of a living artist and then praising the very same work a few years later after learning of the artist's passing, but careful enough to make sure that nobody noticed the discrepancy.
Congratulations on your revealing exhibit.

Anonymous said...

Hey how 'bout a bit of biographical knowledge on your bud, Jackson Pollock? I'm itching to hear more about this guy, he sounds pretty awesome. I'll try and do some research myself and throw a few tidbits of info on here myself in the meantime. Maybe you'd consider making a blog out of it at some point.

Anonymous said...

Hey how 'bout a bit of biographical knowledge on your bud, Jackson Pollock? I'm itching to hear more about this guy, he sounds pretty awesome. I'll try and do some research myself and throw a few tidbits of info on here myself in the meantime. Maybe you'd consider making a blog out of it at some point.

Anonymous said...

Just so we all know, Pablo's full name was Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Clito Ruiz y Picasso. Those crazy Spaniards.

Anonymous said...

I guess I have no appreciation for ART.

Don't understand it and don't know why people would pay good money for something to look at. What satisfaction is there except the satisfaction of knowing you have something no one else has.

Me? I like maps. I can look at a map for hours. At least a map is something useful.

I thought Pablo had a different name than Psam said. Maybe Targo could enlighten us?

dost

Anonymous said...

Another reason why the rich and powerful people that control the world like to have some art pieces around that they have labelled "collector's items" and jacked the price up on to an absolutely ridiculous amount: Taking away appreciation for art is a good way of diminishing independence. Diminishing independence among the masses entrenches and solidifies the power of those who are already in a powerful, wealthy position.
How do you make the masses lose their appreciation for art? SIMPLE! Somehow find some way to make them think it's out of their realm, or too complicated to grasp, or that there's something so valuable or important about it that they just won't get it.
All you need to do is choose a couple of pictures ( it helps if you don't really think there's actually anything all that sepecial about them yourself), and make it published that they are so valuable that any average person would not think they could afford in seventeen lifetimes, and then you are making a very good case for the idea that some people just don't get art.
I've been finding a lot out lately about methods that the rich and powerful use to increase their wealth and power. It's taken me so long to read the materials that have taught me this that it's hard to compress it all into the amount of time and space I have available to write here, but if it could be taught to the majority of citizens, then our nations' upper class that maintains so much of an unfair advantage over us all could have their powers gradually eroded and taken away. Then they'd be right here with the rest of us, and it just ain't so bad, is it?