Can someone explain to me why this painting is worth $142m?

I debated on responding, because there is so much to say. $142 million could do so much good in charity, and yet it hangs on somebody's wall.

Once said : "the value of this item, is whatever someone is willing to pay.."

A bit like Rupp then?

The painting is worth 142 million because either 1) someone is willing to pay that much for it or 2) the person who already has ownership won't part with it for less.

Why is gold worth so much?

Why are certain paper notes worth so much?

Only because a buyer and a seller both agree that it is.

grizz wrote:

The painting is worth 142 million because either 1) someone is willing to pay that much for it or 2) the person who already has ownership won't part with it for less.

No kidding. The question is why. Why is that painting worth $142 million to anyone???

the better answer is that there is logic and some passion mixed in here.

the logic part is this: Bacon is in the canon. He has a set place on the list of, say, the 100 most important artist of the 20c. very few paintings become available for purchase from people on that list. When they do, lots of people want them as the centerpiece of their collection. Plus, the subject of the painting is another artist - lucian freud. Freud isn't on the 100 best list, but maybe the 200 best. That sort of incestuous painter - painter relationship always boosts prices. You get two for one, sort of. And it feels a little like an investment.

the passion part is simply that this is art - people fall in love with pictures and are willing to pay extraordinary amounts of money to own them. Bacon has been a hot artist for a while now - people today love his pictures.

finally, keep in mind how much money billionaires have. Let's say the guy who bought this has $10 billion. This painting cost him 1.5% of his wealth. For a regular guy with $500k to his name...that would be like the regular guy spending $7,500 on a car. not crazy.

Good answer, thanks. Do you know why Bacon is regarded so highly? Are the greatest artists uniquely skilled in a technical sense or is it more about an emotive aspect of their work?

__

well no way to answer that on a message board. the easy answer is that he captured the insanity of the 20c in paint...but that is not really much of an answer. I'm sure you can read about him online to your satisfaction.

I will say that artists are not valued for their technical abilities. Another well trainied artist could easily duplicate bacon's work to a degree not even an expert could tell the difference.

for example, a jeff koons (a living artist) just sold for $60 million. This sculpture was made not by koons, but by assistants at a factory.

these works derive their value the same way as do historical documents - you can get a copy of the constitution for free online...but an original from 1789...that's worth a lot more.

seeking art expert wrote:

I do not understand the value of art. To me the painting looks ok but I imagine there are thousands of people in the world who could create something similar if they wanted. Am I ignorant of some technical genius that has gone into this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24922106

How long have you looked at it? The answer is you have never looked at it. Looking at and apprehending. if you can, any large or small painting takes years, and you have got to see it at 3 in the morning and 3 in the afternoon. You have to see IT, not a postage size reproduction.

Bacon is complicated. There are tens of thousands of decisions that have to be made. A great artist, not exclusive to Bacon, puts his or her life into a painting, together with thoughts of works of others that have been seen.

As for its worth, as others have pointed out, it hardly matters except it makes news. About three years ago I walked into a gallery to see an exhibition by a photographer. Who, it doesn't matter. There were about 20 photographs, each in an edition of about 16. One left me stunned, like seeing an austere beauty briefly on an elevator. There were no prices on the walls. With this photographer it's not done. I walked over to the front desk and asked a young woman there its price. $35,000. I said that's a bit much, even for the greatest living photographer. I was also thinking it's worth it. I didn't have a checkbook with me but I could have reserved it, I think. To this day I regret not having bought it, although 35K is not chump change for someone of my means. This photograph still haunts me.

Bigtool05 wrote:

No kidding. The question is why. Why is that painting worth $142 million to anyone???

Why is any nonessential food, shelter, or clothing item worth anything to anyone? In economics, they use the utility or enjoyment a person gets from a good as a measurement of value. Everyone converts their individual utility into currency at their own internal rate, meaning you might value a reproduction of the Kramer painting from Seinfeld much less highly than I do, and there's no sense asking me why I'd pay $20 for it when you only think it's worth $10.

Whether an individual collector's reason for valuing the Bacon painting at $142mil is because it's Bacon's descendent, or someone who prefers that style above all else, or because he knows his neighbor is only willing to pay 140mil for it is immaterial.

There also may be some other rational at play. If the bidder owns other Bacon works, by bidding up this one he/she has also increased the perceived value of the other works. Wait till the painting by Warhol comes up - expect that this record may not last.

grizz wrote:

2) the person who already has ownership won't part with it for less.

Can't agree with you on this one. If I take a dump and won't sell it for less than $5000 makes me deranged. It does not make my shit worth $5000.

#1 is correct.

genuine random a hole wrote:

grizz wrote:

2) the person who already has ownership won't part with it for less.

Can't agree with you on this one. If I take a dump and won't sell it for less than $5000 makes me deranged. It does not make my shit worth $5000.

#1 is correct.

I'll buy it, do you have paypal?

Well in 15 years when it sells for 200M then their is a reason to buy it now. Art appreciates, simple as that.

Only works as an investment if the return beats inflation

I think the underlying question is less about the economics of how/why this painting went for $142m, but more about what separates it from paintings of less accomplished or famous artists. I seriously doubt I could tell the difference between a painting from Bacon (who I have never heard of before now) and one from some anonymous man/woman who teaches art at the local community college. Is that because I'm somehow deficient in artistic appreciation, or is there some distiguishing feature of the "best" artists which should be obvious to me?

you guys have to stop obsessing with the aesthetic side of art. That is a dead end in the era when almost anyone can make a perfect photograph or image on a computer. Two stories:Banksy set up a stand in Central Park recently, selling his works for $60 each. he barely sold any. In an auction setting they would be worth maybe $300,000. http://gawker.com/banksy-tried-to-sell-his-art-anonymously-to-people-in-c-1444770867Then another artist set up a similar stand, selling fake Banksys, same price. They sold old the fake ones because people had heard of Banksy's stunt and wanted a part of it. http://gawker.com/artists-set-up-fake-banksy-stand-in-central-park-sell-1449484079If you took a famous modern painting out of the Museum of Modern Art and put it in a non-art setting, you would not sell it for much. think of these valuable works as historical documents with some sex and zazzle, passion and prestige attached. So if you want to appreciate why they are worth so much...take an art history class.

distance guy wrote:

I think the underlying question is less about the economics of how/why this painting went for $142m, but more about what separates it from paintings of less accomplished or famous artists. I seriously doubt I could tell the difference between a painting from Bacon (who I have never heard of before now) and one from some anonymous man/woman who teaches art at the local community college. Is that because I'm somehow deficient in artistic appreciation, or is there some distiguishing feature of the "best" artists which should be obvious to me?

So in essence, art is more about the artist than the product? And the artist is a product of his art? Is this just random luck that Bacon becomes world famoous and "historically" significant while the work of some guy that no one has ever heard of goes unnoticed.

There is something deeply upsetting about a craft where "value" is not placed on intrinsic worth.