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 think of these valuable works as historical documents with some sex and zazzle, passion and prestige attached.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?