Hey everyone,
I was browsing through the New York Times earlier this afternoon, and I stumbled upon a full page ad for Sotheby’s Contemporary Art auction. Out of curiosity I went there and browsed the entries according to cost, and the following was one of the most expensive for auction:
(original link: http://search.sothebys.com/jsps/live/lot/LotDetail.jsp?lot_id=44FH3)
I was just wondering, what about that above painting makes it worth so much? I simply don’t see anything more than various shades of red with a big white rectangular box in the middle. I am missing the spiritual element the description in the above link alludes to.
I’ve also never heard of Rothko. Is that a bad thing?
I guess. Maybe after having used rectangular shapes on the computer for so long, stuff like this - something that normal people would consider unique - is commonplace to us all.
I think Rothko died in 1970 according to the date listed on one of the links in that page. Now that I look at it for a while, it does look like something that would look nice hanging on the wall. Though a smaller, cheaper (by a million times), blue-colored imitation would be much better
I consider myself an artist, not necessarily a fully mature artist, but I do consider myself one. One thing that really bothers me is modern art. Some of it is genius, but others are just… eh…
I can see spending 10 to 20 thousand on, but in no way do I see it being worth 8,000,000.
I don’t think it has been sold just yet. The minimum price for this is 8 million with, I am guessing from numerous cartoons, subsequent bids being higher Who knows, this could end up being one of the most expensive paintings ever sold.
rothko is awesome
if youve every seen one of his paintings in real life, theyre all like that but theyre huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge
im talking huuuuuuuuuge
so when you stare at it for a while the colors sortof come out at you.
sonds kind of weird but its true…
seriously
theyre huuuuuuuuuuuuge
Firstly lets refer to the roasting that spazzblaster got over the 850 for the fireworks site. The client thought it was worth $850 so…
I don’t know who you guys are building websites for, but I was already offered $850 for it, but I felt the amount of content that has to be added might mean I should charge more. And after doing some pricing elsewhere, this seems to be about the right price.
Thats whats its all about perception. If someone thinks its worth 8M then its worth 8M
Personally I don’t like it I prefer stuff by John Miller (see attached)
But then you have Tracey Emin who gets a little depressed stays in bed for a month or two then dumps the room into Tate Modern London. I wish I could get a few thousand for the crusty state of my room then I could afford a maid to come in a tidy it up once a week. And don’t get me started on Damien Hurst and pickled cows
I don’t think this kind of painting can be appreciated until you’re standing in front of it and let it surround you, if someone has a spare 8 million to spend then why not?
I remember going to a Magritte exibition, and although it was excellent, the thing that has stuck most in my mind was standing looking at a wall. It was so pure and smooth and blue, the effect of standing in front of it was amazing, wasn’t meant as art but to me it was.
I remember the time on National tv when they got an elephant to do a painting and then got a load of vritics in to give opinions. Most started into what the painting meant with the usual critic manner then the brought in the artist. I’ve never seen so much back peddling done in all my lfe!
*Originally posted by buddhamarz *
**Stare at for a little while…
Kind-a trippy in a way… **
If that’s the case, Rev’s footer is pretty darn trippy too! I say to put that thing up for auction!
But really … art is nothing like it was before. Before art was meant to educate people, for people to take something away from it and apply it to your life. Now, it’s really just a way of people to show off.
“Yeah, I’m into art - just bought this piece for $3000”
“Oh really, Ted? I got a new painting myself. Cost me $8 million”
Art isn’t what it used to be. Now it’s a way for self centered rich dorks to compensate for their small penis size with the size of their checkbook.
*Originally posted by McGiver *
**kirupa.com must be really going well if you browse art galeries in that price category **
Hahaha no. It is just that very few companie would be able to buy a huge ad/feature space in the New York Times. If it wasn’t for that, I would have never really checked. I figured it must be something important to have that much space for a simple painting
**
Well, not the real one, obviously, only a £10 print, but it’s still a cool picture. 
