• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Picasso nets $104 million

American

Unregistered
A
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Messages
3,831
Picasso Oil "Boy with the Pipe" Fetches Auction Record of $104 Million

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pablo Picasso's "Boy with the Pipe" became the most expensive painting ever sold at auction on Wednesday when it fetched $104,168,000 at Sotheby's in New York.
Click to expand...

I think the buyer was on some kind of pipe as well.

Non-infringing link to morally sound picture


So that we have something to discuss besides "Wow!", a great art professor once asked--

Even if one could replicate the brush strokes, texture, and exact physical make-up of a painting (one can, I must guess with today's technology), why is an original piece of art priceless, while copies are worthless? (Besides the legal rights the owner has to reproduce it, of course.)
 
Originally posted by American
Even if one could replicate the brush strokes, texture, and exact physical make-up of a painting (one can, I must guess with today's technology), why is an original piece of art priceless, while copies are worthless?
Click to expand...

Value is always a subjective thing. There is no answer to your question other than that there are enough people who believe the value of the origional to be so much greater and who are willing to pay the money to make it true.
 
Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

Mycroft said:


Value is always a subjective thing. There is no answer to your question other than that there are enough people who believe the value of the origional to be so much greater and who are willing to pay the money to make it true.
Click to expand...

True. Its valuable for the same reasons gold and diamonds are valuable - because someone decided they are, and everyone else agreed.
 
Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

The Central Scrutinizer said:


True. Its valuable for the same reasons gold and diamonds are valuable - because someone decided they are, and everyone else agreed.
Click to expand...

Not really. Gold and diamonds are rare. Both have useful properties. Hence they are valuable.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

LucyR said:


Not really. Gold and diamonds are rare. Both have useful properties. Hence they are valuable.
Click to expand...

Not as rare as that painting. There is only one of those.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

LucyR said:


Not really. Gold and diamonds are rare. Both have useful properties. Hence they are valuable.
Click to expand...

I thought we already had this argument.

The value of gold and diamond is both entirely, 100%, unavoidably subjective. I personally think diamonds are worthless. They are also incredibly common, and you can create pure, near perfect diamonds in a lab.

As for gold, I would say aluminium was more useful.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

Fade said:


I thought we already had this argument.

The value of gold and diamond is both entirely, 100%, unavoidably subjective. I personally think diamonds are worthless. They are also incredibly common, and you can create pure, near perfect diamonds in a lab.

As for gold, I would say aluminium was more useful.
Click to expand...

I really don't recall ever having any interaction with you. If we've discussed this previously I apologize.

It would seem to me that the value associated with just about anything is subjective to some degree.

"Incredibly common"? By comparison with what?

Btw, creating perfect artificial diamonds is fairly difficult, and remains pretty expensive. Given the choice I'd prefer natural diamonds. Some of the work I do would be impossible without them, however.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

Fade said:
As for gold, I would say aluminium was more useful.
Click to expand...

Maybe for some purposes. Gold is a much better conductor of electricity, though.
 
Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

The Central Scrutinizer said:
True. Its valuable for the same reasons gold and diamonds are valuable - because someone decided they are, and everyone else agreed.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion about the very expensive and collectible bottles of wine? Can we compare them with an artifact that someobe decided that it is priceless?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

Originally posted by LucyR
Btw, creating perfect artificial diamonds is fairly difficult, and remains pretty expensive. Given the choice I'd prefer natural diamonds. Some of the work I do would be impossible without them, however.
Click to expand...

There was an article in Wired a while back on this very subject. A couple companies have come up with new ways to create artificial diamonds that are indistinguishable from natural ones.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

Cleopatra said:


What is your opinion about the very expensive and collectible bottles of wine? Can we compare them with an artifact that someobe decided that it is priceless?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting one as well. In my experience of wine (which runs the gamut of top-shelf to anti-freeze) you really don't get a wine that tastes any better for having aged more than five years. Wine experts seem to generally agree that no wine tastes better after ten years. So why pay thousands, even millions, for some wine that's a hundred years old?

It's all subjective. But then, that's only my opinion.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Picasso nets $104 million

LucyR said:


Not really. Gold and diamonds are rare. Both have useful properties. Hence they are valuable.
Click to expand...

Gold has rarety value, although it has few useful applications - most of it sits around in the form of ingots. The price of gold is driven by limited supply and a widely held belief that it is a good good store of wealth.Theoretically, it could collapse overnight.

However, diamond are plentiful. Its price is supported by cartel activity (de Beers) and good marketing "diamonds are forever", "diamonds are a girls best friend" etc.
 
American said:

Even if one could replicate the brush strokes, texture, and exact physical make-up of a painting (one can, I must guess with today's technology), why is an original piece of art priceless, while copies are worthless? (Besides the legal rights the owner has to reproduce it, of course.)
Click to expand...

For the same reason that a splinter of old wood is less than worthless, but the same splinter if thought to be an actual piece of the one true cross would be worth a fortune to the right buyer.

-z
 
Mr Manifesto said:
BTW, is it just me, or is that painting not very good?
Click to expand...
Well, of course it is all a matter of taste. I like it quite a bit. Have you seen any of his paintings in this style in real life? Photographs, posters, etc, just don't begin to capture the lighting, skin tones, contours, etc, that is in the original. I remember the first time I saw one, I just stood there slackjawed, nearly falling in love with the subject (I think it was Nora). It's obviously a very artificial style, yet somehow the painting seemed both to be 3D and alive, and I stood there almost waiting for her to move, to breathe. I can easily imagine, if I had the change, dropping $100M in an auction before I thought better of it, on that painting (the woman, not this boy), just out of sheer passion for the painting.

I can't imagine ever, no matter how much I practiced, ever, ever, coming close to evoking those feelings and thoughts in a viewer. I'm just awed by the man's skill and artistry.

For the record, plenty of his stuff doesn't move me at all, so it's not hero worship. And I don't think I'm "right" - this period in his work moves me tremendously, but fully understand that it won't move others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom