No.5 1948The Independent reports that Jackson Pollock’s No.5 1948 changed hands for £73m ($140m). if confirmed this would be the most money ever paid for a painting, exceeding the $134m paid recently for Gustav Klimt's Adele Bloch-Bauer
Adele Bloch-BauerUnlike the Klimt which was bought for a private gallery it is unlikely that the Pollock will be on view. The buyer, is believed to be David Martinez, the founder of Fintech Advisory Ltd, a financial house that specialises in buying Third World debt.
Both are stunning paintings but I still cannot see what makes them worth so much. I wonder what the artists themselves would think of those prices…
Jackson Pollock Klimt art
26 comments:
I'm no art hound, so let me just break it down from the untrained eye perspective. The Pollock one looks like my toddler after she broke into the case of finger paints I had been hiding. The second one is visually stunning due to the meld of patterns and shapes seamlessly flowing from backdrop to foreground. The gilded dapple effect also makes it attractive.
Even so, BOTH are overpriced. I can't help but ponder the amount of good that kind of cash could do for certain individuals. The NY Times profiled a heartbreaking picture of a 30 pound 6 year old (for reference my 3 year old weighs 35 pounds) sold into indentured servitude by his parents for 20 bucks a year. The idealistic part of me wants all this money spent frivolously on art to go to the cause of releasing children from slavery. :(
Pollack was a genius. If you think not, note two things: everyone who has seen one of his paintings can instantly recognize another, and anyone who actually tries to spatter their way to a Pollack work-alike finds that it is an almost impossible style to duplicate. (Klee's "childlike" drawings are similar in that respect: just try painting your own Klee.)
EWBL, how do you know that the money paid for the Pollack did not, in fact, go to charitable causes? Without knowing Mr. Geffen better than you or I do, it's a bit hard to generalize, isn't it? Some Hollywood types are greedy people of questionable parentage; others are generous. I choose to assume the best until I know otherwise.
(I guess I could trouble to spell Pollock's name correctly. Sorry.)
Oooh, I love Klee. We are talking about the German rock band, right?
I already admitted to not knowing anything about art. I don't know who buys it, who sells it, and what the monetary value of such transactions should be, I only pointed out that in my limited perspective I'd prefer to spend the money in a drastically different way. Mostly for various charities, and the rest for a lifetime supply of Cheetos and weird socks.
Pollock? I'm sorry but I just don't get him at all. His art is definitely unique but fails to please my eye. This is one of those paintings where the owner looks for the signature in order to determine which side is up.
If I recall correctly, Pollock lived a miserable life and never even dreamed of that much money.
I pity the poor painter Pollock,
A miserable creature of small luck.
He said, "Each thing I draw'll
Turn into a scrawl,
So I'll spatter... then it'll be all luck!
EWBL, I'm afraid you've misconstrued me; I'm merely saying that we don't know where that money went, that perhaps the seller did use a goodly part of it for charity... or not, we just don't know.
I would say that Pollock is an acquired taste, but I remember loving the first Pollock I ever saw. I kept returning to it and standing, mesmerized, in front of it. At the time, I had no clue that he was famous.
Yes, I love Klimt as well. And Klee... the painter; I don't know the band. (Hey, I'm old; give me a break! :))
Art is so intensely personal and subjective, that it's rare that people as a collective will agree on the merits of one painting or another.
That being said, I prefer things of beauty, contrast, interest......art that denotes a real sense of accomplished talent. Pollock doesn't do that for me, but the Klimt is magnificent.
I was kidding with the Klee rock band reference. I'm quite familiar with the works of Paul Klee. I'm a bit culturally ignorant, but I do know the basics, and he's considered to be one of the Masters.
steve bates: you say he is an aquired taste? he is a confidence trickster and you have been had! - SNTM
say no to mullets, I believe you misread my sentence. I dislike people who quote themselves, but I'm going to do it here: "I would say that Pollock is an acquired taste, but I remember loving the first Pollock I ever saw." In other words, one might think that Pollock is an acquired taste, but he was not so in my case; I liked his paintings right away.
Pollock is not a confidence trickster: Pollock is not anything today except dead. He has been dead since I was eight years old, long before the first time I saw one of his paintings. And no, he was not worth millions. He was, however, chronically depressed, and died untimely young. Hence my limerick above. You might take a look at the Wikipedia biography of Pollock, unless you consider that a waste of time, in which case, you might not. :)
Perhaps I have been taken, but if so, I'm in good company... composer Morton Feldman (or is he a trickster too?), jazz musician Ornette Coleman, and more museum directors than I can count.
I could have done that. - SNTM
I shall make a point of attending your first opening. Then I can say, "I was there when..." :)
Art is so intensely personal and subjective, that it's rare that people as a collective will agree on the merits of one painting or another. - EWBL
That's most certainly true, EWBL.
That being said, I prefer things of beauty, contrast, interest......art that denotes a real sense of accomplished talent. Pollock doesn't do that for me, but the Klimt is magnificent. - EWBL
A lot of people over a lot of years have found "beauty, contrast, interest" in Pollock's work. Pollock's subconscious had a talent for reaching people, however, um, simplified his painting techniques may have been.
I am moved by many different artists' works, some very traditional, some not; some with exceptional drawing skills, some not. As I look around at the cheap prints on my walls, I see a Vermeer, a Kandinsky, a Dürer and a painting (artist unknown to me) of Louis XIV's court musicians, because I spent several decades performing that sort of music. There's room for more than one kind of art in the world.
I got quoted! Confetti and balloons are dropping from my ceiling even as I type! Woo Hoo!
I enjoy a plethora of artwok on my walls too Steve, courtesy of my budding muralist children and their preferred medium of filthy hands, and crayon scribbles. Their talent has certainly reached out to me on more than a sub-conscious level though, and inspired a lot of feelings and reaction too!
Whether any of us likes or dislikes these paintings is irrelevant, since their primary function is no longer to please or displease us, but rather as items of commerce.
Have you ever seen the children's book, Olivia by Ian Falconer? She is a precocious pig. She goes to the museum with her mother and loves to look at Degas, but when she comes to Pollock (Autumn Rhythm#30), well here is what it says: But there is one painting Olivia just doesn't get. [staring at the Pollock] "I could do that in about five minutes," she says to her mother. [turn the page and you see black and red paint all over her bedroom wall] As soon as she gets home she gives it a try. [right hand side page shows mom's mouth agape] turn the page and you see Olivia sitting down, and the text reads Time out.
This is what I think of when I see Pollock.
I once asked my husband why things like paintings of things such as one simple square are so valued, and that I could have done that.
He said, "Yeah, but you didn't."
pisces iscariot, I suppose that settles it... I was in a used book store today, browsing the art books, and the big Klimt coffee table book cost more than the big Pollock coffee table book. Now we know for certain their relative merits. :)
Artworks as pricey collectibles trouble me, but eventually even the most ardent collectors pass from this world, and their children often are willing to make the works available for public viewing again. I am much more distressed by those who collect, say, fine violins for their monetary value, because the instruments genuinely decay from disuse. A bank vault is no place for a Stradivarius.
SNTM, good on you! :)
EWBL, save those handprints; you've no idea how valuable they may be someday.
Elizabeth w, there's no accounting for taste (or lack of it, as one wag among my friends used to needle me). I cannot say Pollock is for everyone, only that those who say they could do his work in five minutes either have never tried, or have never measured their results against an audience of ordinary people who, like me, surprise themselves by how much they end up liking Pollock. Like you, I don't much care what critics say. Unlike you, I find Pollock's works move me. More than that I cannot offer.
Just to renew the controversy, but with a different artist, I live in the city that contains the Rothko Chapel. I've even played a concert in that chapel. Mark Rothko's works do absolutely nothing for me. Given how much art I do like, that surprises some of my friends. So be it. As EWBL noted, art appreciation is a very individual thing.
It's not that I don't like Pollock. Actually, I do. But I remember being like Olivia, as a child--not "getting" abstract work, just seeing the splatter for splatter, from the most concrete sense. It's only as a middle-aged woman that I am beginning to appreciate any type of art.
I think you also have to consider historical value. That adds to the price.
wow I am away a few days thanks to my cable being buggered! Two points to add to this. Great comments and a great discussion. thanks all
Pisces makes a good point. A ot of artwork is treated as a commodity. Geffen sold the painting and others to fund a takeover of the LA Times so it seems.So much for a love of art!
It's just that a lot of art is treated as a commodity. It is of course no big surprise, Mullets, but it still dismays
Geffen sold the painting and others to fund a takeover of the LA Times so it seems.So much for a love of art!
Or a love of charity. Ah, well, it was a nice fantasy while it lasted.
Ah well indeed Steve. Perhaps the scales wil fall from their eyes one day..
My cynicism rings true once again! I knew inside that bartering these artistic works likely wouldn't benefit charitable causes.
Sad but true, ewbl. If only to be proved wrong!
NEVER! Well, maybe sometimes, but only if I'm ailing. Otherwise, I'm practically a prophetess.
lol, a veritble delphic oracle he? Ewbl the Sibyl??
Isn't the painting overpriced? I think that the price of the painting is so expensive. And unlike the other expensive paintings I've seen before, I can say that those paintings are more beautiful than this of Pollock's. I wonder what is there in this painting that makes it very expensive.
overpriced is always the word for painting, and it will be more and more overpriced : http://www.billionairepainting.com
art is dead
I don't think art is dead. There are still fantastic artist out there but you have to cut through kilometres of bullshit to find them! Great site btw
Post a Comment