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

nnnvn bn wrote:

So in essence, art is more about the artist than the product?.

for the most part yes, although it also often comes down to the whims of billionaires and what they think is cool enough to spend some money on.

Stater of the obvious wrote:

seeking art expert wrote:

Do you know why Bacon is regarded so highly?

Because it's DELICIOUS!!!!!!!!

POD!

There is a lot of money going into the art market right now due to the scarcity of good investment opportunities for deep pocket people. Art, antiques, collectibles are great places to park your cash as these items will always appreciate in value over time and rarely lose value. They also serve a dual purpose of stroking the owner's ego (what is the point of being a billionaire if you don't have a collection of _____).

The Bacon piece was highly sought after because previous examples of his triptychs brought big $ at auction. It is also a rare example of a 20th century artist using another artist as a subject in a work.

Because someone thought it would be a good investment, particularly with the publicity from paying that amount. I'm not a fan of Francis Bacon.

I recommend a great and entertaining book : 7 days in the Art World by Sarah Thorton for any interested in how value is placed on art.

She checks out an auction, a famous museum, gallery owners, Art Basel, art criticism, famous artists but in an entertaining and easy to understand way.

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Days-World-Sarah-Thornton/dp/039333712X

nnnvn bn wrote:

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.

NOTHING has intrinsic worth! EVERYTHING is based on subjective value. Try offering food to people who are not hungry, they usually turn it down. Or go ask people "what do you want?" I have done that and shockingly most people say "I don't want nothing"! Things only have value within CONTEXT. Art at an art auction for rich people has value. On a desert island it probably has NO VALUE!

Bigtool05 wrote:

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???

Exactly, there is nothing like a smartass who is dumb

Its a crock they should make every modern wank artist paint a real painting them let them lose on this crap..

Wost of them cannot paint or draw, that fecker who did that half shark didn't even saw the b'stard himself

Non-runners might ask why any letsrunner would give his/her life savings and left nut to own Pre's jock strap!

because it looks like Elvis

I don't know if I agreeIsn't a 2:30 marathon "worth" more than a 3:30 marathon?We have universally agreed that a good runner is measured by speed, setting records and winning medals. Are we going to make the argument that there's no difference between Pamela Anderson and Dennis Kimetto as marathoners? The same should apply to artists. Base their value on what they can produce.

Super Jay Five wrote:

[quote]nnnvn bn wrote:

NOTHING has intrinsic worth! EVERYTHING is based on subjective value. Try offering food to people who are not hungry, they usually turn it down. Or go ask people "what do you want?" I have done that and shockingly most people say "I don't want nothing"! Things only have value within CONTEXT. Art at an art auction for rich people has value. On a desert island it probably has NO VALUE!

Because a bunch of decadent rich people would rather piss away money on status objects than use it for something worthwhile, like feeding poor people. Check out Thorstein Veblen's "Theory of the Leisure Class."

ccskcksdvs wrote:

I don't know if I agree

Isn't a 2:30 marathon "worth" more than a 3:30 marathon?

We have universally agreed that a good runner is measured by speed, setting records and winning medals.

Are we going to make the argument that there's no difference between Pamela Anderson and Dennis Kimetto as marathoners?

The same should apply to artists. Base their value on what they can produce.

Super Jay Five wrote:

[quote]nnnvn bn wrote:

NOTHING has intrinsic worth! EVERYTHING is based on subjective value. Try offering food to people who are not hungry, they usually turn it down. Or go ask people "what do you want?" I have done that and shockingly most people say "I don't want nothing"! Things only have value within CONTEXT. Art at an art auction for rich people has value. On a desert island it probably has NO VALUE!

The irony is Pamela Anderson is an "artist" and she has FAR MORE VALUE to general public then Kimetto (most people have no idea who that is). She is worth millions and an internatioal celebrity AND has run a marathon. Kimetto has the WR in marathon and owns cattle. Most people would say Anderson has produced more and has more value.

0 - 2:00 for you, mr ccskcksdvs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4

ccskcksdvs wrote:

I don't know if I agree

Isn't a 2:30 marathon "worth" more than a 3:30 marathon?

We have universally agreed that a good runner is measured by speed, setting records and winning medals.

Are we going to make the argument that there's no difference between Pamela Anderson and Dennis Kimetto as marathoners?

The same should apply to artists. Base their value on what they can produce.

Super Jay Five wrote:

[quote]nnnvn bn wrote:

NOTHING has intrinsic worth! EVERYTHING is based on subjective value. Try offering food to people who are not hungry, they usually turn it down. Or go ask people "what do you want?" I have done that and shockingly most people say "I don't want nothing"! Things only have value within CONTEXT. Art at an art auction for rich people has value. On a desert island it probably has NO VALUE!

was looking for some real drawn-out arguments on the nature of art and its value. if you can trick people into thinking your stuff is worth that, or find someone to trick people into thinking it, there you are.

even chowderhead ayn rand takes pot-shots at this with Touhy in Fountainhead. the irony there is she built up her idiotic brand. or perhaps not irony at all, and just a very conscious meta effort on behalf of Rand to be poking fun at precisely the kind of BS that allowed her to be a success. that's probably giving her too much credit though.

anyway, on a basic level, art valuations function much like any other market.a great deal of the arbitrary mixed with presumed confidence. snapchat rejecting a $3 billion cash offer actually seems more outrageous than $142 million for a Bacon painting i don't care about.

Mick Lovin wrote:

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.."

$142 million is in some bank account, there is only a picture on the wall...

Mick Lovin wrote:

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.."

$142 million is in some bank account, there is only a picture on the wall...

Mick Lovin wrote:

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...

No, it does not hang on somebody's wall. Only the painting resides there. The $142 million is now in the hands of the former owner who may use it for any number of other things. But almost certainly not to wallpaper his house with $100 bills.

agip wrote:

0 - 2:00 for you, mr ccskcksdvs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4

ccskcksdvs wrote:

I don't know if I agree

Isn't a 2:30 marathon "worth" more than a 3:30 marathon?

We have universally agreed that a good runner is measured by speed, setting records and winning medals.

Are we going to make the argument that there's no difference between Pamela Anderson and Dennis Kimetto as marathoners?

The same should apply to artists. Base their value on what they can produce. [quote]Super Jay Five wrote:

Nice!