How much would you offer for this painting?

A blogger's take on appreciating Rothko ......

https://easiersaidthandrawn13.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/appreciating-rothko/

A conversation about Rothko .......

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=630949

 

William Boyd on Rothko and others of his ilk ......

http://www.williamboyd.co.uk/art-mark-rothko

 

Zero, Zilch, Zip.....Nada............sorry........just not for me!!!!

 

OK, here's my honest, bare opinion.

William Boyd should be curating several art galleries. He certainly would save them a fortune.

 

One mans' trash is another man's treasure. I personally would take the Rothko over the never ending flea market finds and factory paintings that some posters seem to adore. Art is very subjective. The closest I ever came to "owning" a Rothko was in the early 1980's when I was bidding for one at Sotheby's on behalf of a client. I was authorized to bid up to $300k and I got one chance to raise my paddle at the $300k mark. There was a lull in the bidding and for what seemed like ages it looked like I was the winning bidder. Just before the gavel banged another bidder entered the game and another immediately thereafter. The painting sold for $400k. I was nervous because I only had a handshake agreement with my client and there was no way that I could have paid for the painting had he reneged on the purchase. Needless to say that the painting is worth a fortune today not that $400k was chump change in the early 80's.

 

Mark, IMHUAO, the flea market, etc. paintings are purchased by the multitude that want a well done symbol of ............. their choice.

The Rothko that sits atop this thread, to most, has no appeal because it does not portray an iota of any genre with which they are familiar. (Modern? Ancient history?) My perception is - as it appears on my screen - there are two major colored sections. Each has smudges of different colors either under or over the blue bottom and greenish blue upper. Does not in any way appeal to me.

Rather brings back memories of someone standing at the front of the class expounding on a how a certain piece of art creates x, y, z or maybe d e f sensations, etc. While running through my head are thoughts concerning how much that person is being paid while attempting to convince us that it is an immense, exceptionally inspiring, one of a kind masterpiece, while I can only envision something my neighbor's dog left on my lawn this morning.

Can anyone offer a quick opinion why two symmetrical blue lines, divided by one red, as shown in post #18, has a current adjusted value of THREE MILLION DOLLARS?

To anyone who posts

"an immense, exceptionally inspiring, one of a kind masterpiece."​

I can only respond with - "I used to like you."

 

Can anyone offer a quick opinion why a landscape by Monet or a portrait by Renoir might have a current value of TWENTY million dollars? The speculative aspect of art has little, if any, relation to its' aesthetic value. The fact that you can recognize the subject matter does not make a painting better than one that is totally abstract. I would even agree that some of the worst art produced is abstract. Despite the fact that the Rothko does not "portray an iota of any genre with which they are familiar" it is one hell of a painting (IMHO of course).

 

Not everyone has the means to shop in high end galleries for their "art " , and its a lot more fun to find a decent painting for $12 than one for $12000 .

 

Simply because someone will pay that.

 

Depends on who you are.
If you can't afford a $3 million painting , I'll bet finding a $12,000 one....would be just as fun .....

 

Monet or Renoir?

Because it can never be replaced.

To me, because neither decided in later years that it was easier to throw paint across the room and see what would adhere to the canvas.

Or try criss-crossing a rectangular hunk of wood with brush strokes. Maybe in just one color or perhaps 20 different shades.

If they had done either or both of those just a few times it would have a current value of $40 million - because some art critic would expound on its RARITY.

And such as Putin or trump would believe him.

 

I don't think anyone is going to change their views based on anything I say, but I do have some thoughts:

1) In both the world of art, and in the collecting of antiques, objects have a value that is not defined by how difficult or time-consuming they were to make, but on a number of factors, which tend to change over time, including a) rarity and b) popularity and therefore c) what bidders are willing to pay at auction.

2) The views of any individual, that is, what they find attractive, may be wildly different that the value found in 1) above. It is quite common for items, defined as valuable because they sell at auction for lots of money, to be unappealing to some people. I may not find the Mona Lisa interesting or attractive; it is still a very valuable painting. A painting does not become worthless just because a particular individual doesn't like it. But it may become worthless if nobody likes it.

3) There are numerous examples of both 1) and 2); in another thread was a video about how an old blanket sold for 1.5 million dollars; a lot of people might say it was not worth that. One bidder thought it was; an unknown number of other bidders thought it was worth at least 1.4 million. There were probably folks who would not have paid $5 for it if they saw it at Goodwill.

4) I offer no opinion as to the validity of the points above, but I do believe that is how "value" works; and I do have my own opinions as to what I personally find valuable.

 

I just think the world of high end art is filled with precious people who could sell coal in Newcastle. Once an artist is "discovered" and his work is pumped up, the masses follow. We were in a museum in San Diego some years ago and walked into a room that had four fluorescent lightbulbs, one on each wall. My husband said it must be under construction and the docent said, no, that was the exhibit. That artist was paid thousands of dollars to hang up four lightbulbs. The only "emotion" I had was disgust. To me, it's the Emporer's new clothes. As Barnum said, there's one born every minute.

 

That's likely to be Dan Flavin.
Since I'm a 'sign guy' the first time I saw one of his pieces I asked how many they wanted.
Some installations are more interesting than others is all I can offer.
He found a niche in the art whirled and exploited it.
No one has to buy it.
~
p.s. In the biz those tubes are typically termed 'lamps' for they are not and do not 'bulb'.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some people buy such paintings in order to "weed out" those inferior/uneducated people in their "close" circle of business or social acquaintances who may not "appreciate" such "great" art.

 

Well hold on to your seats because I have just this morning decided that I could do a four-part painting which would set the art world on its ear. I'll be doing a painting of a white bathtub.

It would be in four segments on one canvas: Pink bathtub at sunrise -- White bathtub at noon -- Golden bathtub at sunset -- Black bathtub at midnight.

You get one guess where I'll be sitting when I set up my easel.

 

Go for it!
Occupied or no?

 

http://www.warholstars.org/tub_girls.html
~
http://www.artnet.com/artists/andy-warhol/bathtub-YxR5XlA8e3NcDY-Ry0rifQ2

 

The tub would not be occupied. With a true artist's eye I don't want to diminish the "impact" of the four colors on the sensuous curves of the tub which will be the "focus" of the painting.

 

Have you seen the movie "Exit Through The Gift Shop"? Perfect example of how marketing, not talent, can create a buying frenzy.