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

Veblen wrote:

Who do people pay $50k for a car when a 10k car works as well, even if they go into debt to do it. Why do they pay $1000 for shoes or a watch. Costly status signaling.

This ^

'Theory of the Leisure Class' should be required reading.

Veblen wrote:

Who do people pay $50k for a car when a 10k car works as well, even if they go into debt to do it. Why do they pay $1000 for shoes or a watch. Costly status signaling.

No, a 50k car will usually be superior in some quantitative respect compared to a 10k car. It might have better performance or have desirable extra function.

Similarly a $1000 watch will usually have been made using higher quality components and be more finely crafted than a $50 one.

Art on the other hand becomes valuable based on the whims of rich collectors or the artist's background rather than the quality of the actual work, and despite the fact that it would often be indistinguishable without its provenance.

So you are telling me people will lease a Lexus, as financially stupid as that is, because a Lexus is such an awesome car and there is consistent and durable pleasure in owning one rather than to send a fake signal of status? I mean, sure it is somewhat better, but literally 5 times better?

As for the watch, I defy you to show me a Rolex that keeps better time than a Timex. Why are diamonds worth anything as jewelry? Costly status signaling is a well-researched topic and it is easy to ferret out.

If you had a watch you really loved then found out years later it wasn't a real Rolex and the diamonds were fake would you be mad? Why? If you loved it before why wouldn't you still love it?

I just took a screenshot of the photo.

Guess I just saved myself $142 million.

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

I almost thought you were talking about the Warhol diptych. According to the WSJ, a Warhol diptych sold in the same price range.

What kind of society do we live in where such excessive value is placed on such pieces? Multimillionaire conspicuous display and social politics is seen as more valuable than noble and virtuous causes? Pop, fashion art is valued more than other art that combines craftmanship, genius, beauty and morals? It is a shame.

Kipketer_Pumpkin_Eater wrote:

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

I almost thought you were talking about the Warhol diptych. According to the WSJ, a Warhol diptych sold in the same price range.

What kind of society do we live in where such excessive value is placed on such pieces? Multimillionaire conspicuous display and social politics is seen as more valuable than noble and virtuous causes? Pop, fashion art is valued more than other art that combines craftmanship, genius, beauty and morals? It is a shame.

__

you sound like a 12 year old kid.

how about we celebrate the fact that art is so highly valued in western society.

agip wrote:

you sound like a 12 year old kid.

how about we celebrate the fact that art is so highly valued in western society.

That's not the right kind of valuing art. The buyer would have been better off donating that money to teaching painting classes to children or some such. Charity is often use to show off status, so he would have still gotten that benefit.

Conservative Hindu Dentist wrote:

agip wrote:

you sound like a 12 year old kid.

how about we celebrate the fact that art is so highly valued in western society.

That's not the right kind of valuing art. The buyer would have been better off donating that money to teaching painting classes to children or some such. Charity is often use to show off status, so he would have still gotten that benefit.

The buyer is in a better position to judge what his/her best interests are than you are.

In addition, the $142 million simply transferred to another owner. It did not evaporate. If that other owner decides to "donate that money to teaching painting classes to children" he/she certainly has every opportunity to do so - an opportunity that he/she would not have had if the buyer had not provided the funds.

But at the end of the day, the real issue is that it is very easy, and of zero value, to tell other people what they should do with their money.

Conservative Hindu Dentist wrote:

agip wrote:

you sound like a 12 year old kid.

how about we celebrate the fact that art is so highly valued in western society.

That's not the right kind of valuing art. The buyer would have been better off donating that money to teaching painting classes to children or some such. Charity is often use to show off status, so he would have still gotten that benefit.

__

well it's not either or. I suspect the new owner has a few billion dollars - this was like a weekend splurge to us. Maybe he gives millions to charity already. Not sure what your point is really.

maybe he just really f'in loved the painting, has $5 billion sitting around and thought the Bacon would really go well with his couch. Maybe he will donate it to a museum for all of us to enjoy.

this is starting to irritate me. I need to go for a run.

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.

Yes I agree. The art world disgraces itself by the way it acts. Things are valued by...if the crap that most of them are became cool at some point to own. If the artist is lucky enough to somehow fit the phenomenon of the cool factor all of a sudden their garbage is worth a lot than it just builds from there.

It's sad that crap sells for 140 million and talented artists have no income.

agip wrote:

well it's not either or. I suspect the new owner has a few billion dollars - this was like a weekend splurge to us. Maybe he gives millions to charity already. Not sure what your point is really.

maybe he just really f'in loved the painting, has $5 billion sitting around and thought the Bacon would really go well with his couch. Maybe he will donate it to a museum for all of us to enjoy.

this is starting to irritate me. I need to go for a run.

I thought you didn't run any more in order to protect your knees.

He might as well just have lit a cigar with a 142 million dollar bill.

It's just a speculative investment market, a confidence game. The fact that it's art is beside the point.

here's what ticks me off about the 'he could have done such great charity instead with the money:'

where does it end? How much of your wealth do you have to give away to charity before you can buy yourself a nice painting? How about you? How much do you have to give away before you buy a burr coffee grinder? How much do you send to doctors without borders before you buy a new pair of spikes you don't really need?

It never ends. Some very very rich guy bought a painting with probably 1-3% of his worth. That's ok - he doesn't have to pass some morals test to make it appropriate.

To say that a poem written by you or me is just as good as something written by Byron or Shakespeare is ridiculous. Art is subjective, I'll give you that. But even subjectivity is grounded on a common base of human apprehension. We "recognize" talent or superiority because like truth, it has a way of speaking for itself.

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.

ccskcksdvs wrote:

To say that a poem written by you or me is just as good as something written by Byron or Shakespeare is ridiculous. Art is subjective, I'll give you that. But even subjectivity is grounded on a common base of human apprehension. We "recognize" talent or superiority because like truth, it has a way of speaking for itself.

agip wrote:

0 - 2:00 for you, mr ccskcksdvs.

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

Holy Smokes, did you miss the point! By a country mile. No, better make that a country light-year.

Conservative Hindu Dentist wrote:

He might as well just have lit a cigar with a 142 million dollar bill.

That would have a very different economic impact. Lighting the cigar would reduce the overall money supply. Giving the $142 million to someone else to acquire the painting does not reduce the money in circulation at all and does not preclude that money from then being used to invest in new companies or technology (or going to someone's favorite charity).

Two very different actions.

Those wondering why certain art is valued might enjoy reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Painting-Like-Pizza-Understanding/dp/0691090521

This is true:

"It's just a speculative investment market, a confidence game. The fact that it's art is beside the point."

Along with a healthy dose of asserting status/preening.