This piece of rubbish sold for $54 million

I like Gauguin better, Don, but he and Vincent were rather close.

Re: This piece of rubbish sold for $54 million


Would you swap a bag of sherbet lemons for $54 million?

(just checking...)

ebrown, once you have paid $54 million for this mind numbing rubbish where are you going to find someone stupid enough to give you your $54 million investment back?

well, i hear he was kind of a big deal, that van Gogh.

...as was his grandson Theo.

If you are in this unhappy predicament, I just so happen to have this bag of lemons.

I'va always loved Van Gogh's paintings. Not every single stroke he painted, but the majority of it.

Or how about this piece of tripe at JUST $104 million

http://www.overstockart.com/boywithpipe.html


click on link then zoom in

$104 million? It's advertised on the link for $99!

Maybe there were a lot of shipping costs involved?

Don, art is rather like wine. If one sees something that is pleasing to the eye, then it is good. When having a glass of wine, if it pleases the palate, then it is good.

As I am given to understand, "living with Picasso", was horrendous, but his blue period, especially The Tragedy, was one with which I could identify.

Letty, much as I agree with you about certain works of art appealing to certain people, I would think that these crazy prices are reached purely because of the rarity and kudos factors.
If a tycoon has money to throw away, he'll probably buy a Van Gogh, Picasso etc., so that he can show his social circle how rich he is.
It's not such a risk really, if you have that sort of money.
As long as you can keep it safe for a few years, there'll always be another buyer out there somewhere who'll take it off your hands for more than you paid.

It's not so bad when these rare items end up being bought by a museum and put on display, but most of the private buyers will just stick them away in a dusty old vault somewhere, if truth be known.

I think that may be a print of the original malek

Obviously this is not a school for art connoisseurship. If you dont "get it" then noone can convince you or bring you up to speed about the body of work by van Gogh. He represents another level of achivement in the Post Impressionist genre that doesnt contain a lot of examples really. His bofy of work ws not huge but he went in different directions after the "academy" hold was broken in the 1860's. van Gogh presages modernism and all the weird workd we have come to appreciate.

I find his work loaded with passion and skill at what he was trying to achieve.

As far as the prices, remember, the buying public for all thee works around the world is but a few thousand people who , mostly loan the works to museums for the "attaboys" they get from doing so.
Locking up in a private vault is only (really) representative of works that were stolen in WWII and have yet to be repatriated.


You kinda sound like Frank Rizzo when he spoke out about works by Rauschenburg and Oldfield and Judy Chicago.

van Gogh wsnt a camera, he was an interpreter.

Farmerman I have no doubt that your comment is perfectly logical and sensible but in my defence may I say that as an ordinary working guy this stuff goes straight past me

Letty, thank you for your perfectly sensible comments as well

and to everyone that posted

I can't see the value myself, but that has little to do with whether or not it has value. Typically; a painting of that caliber is worth at least whatever was paid last, and they seldom, if ever, go down. Wasted money? Not. Rare art is probably among the safest investments money can buy. (I'll take Picasso over Van Gogh any day… though the Van Gogh Double Espresso makes a fine Martini).

Have to say I don't agree with you at all there Letty. Is art always what looks nice? What about Damien Hirsts rotting bulls? They don't look nice, and I certainly wouldn't want them anywhere near my dinner.

I find this thread particually interesting, because it reminds me of me and my Dad. He works in a factory, and I have just finished art school.
He thinks my opinions aren't based in reality, I say that the art world is too different to working in a factory for him to understand much about it.
What I have learned about art, is that the majority of people try to understand it in a practical sense, which results in them not understanding it.

Why are VanGoughs sunflowers so good? They don't really look that much like sunflowers to be honest. They aren't that realistic or that interesting.
What makes this orange-mud-covered-canvas worth as much as it is, is that it was different to other paintings at the time, and therefore influenced a whole load of other artists afterwards, each one causing an uproar of controversy as their paintings become more and more experimental, and then put on a pedestal and idolised for ages afterward.
To art collectors and enthusiasts this is very interesting. To a load of other people- who cares?
I can understand the confusion that surrounds paintings being worth so much. But I can also understand why they are worth what they are worth. I think acceptance is crucial to 'understanding' art.

P.Q., art is an individualized thing. Just as poetry and music, it speaks to different people in different ways. What one may like today, may change tomorrow. Let's call it a variation on a theme. Often I feel that the truly great artist recognizes the dilettante in the viewer or listener, and panders to that. Frankly, I like Starry Night, but only because Don McLean sang so beautifully about it.

Yes I know it is individual and speaks to different people in different ways.
What is your argument?