Painting owned by Eric Clapton sold for £21,000,000 - New record. It's a bit crap.
197 replies, posted
As somebody who has an Art degree... I still don't understand this shit. £21m for what's essentially a used paint palette.[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19937044"]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19937044[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]An oil painting by the German artist Gerhard Richter has sold for £21m ($34m) - an auction record for a work by a living artist.[/B]Abstraktes Bild, painted in 1994 , which was owned by rock star Eric Clapton, has been described as a "masterpiece of calculated chaos".
The artwork, expected to fetch £9-12m, was sold to an anonymous bidder at Sotheby's in London on Friday.
A round of applause broke out as the painting went under the hammer.
Gerhard Richter, 80, who lives in Cologne, is considered by some to be the world's greatest living painter.
[B]'Unique opportunity'[/B]
Sotheby's called Abstraktes Bild a "paradigm of Gerhard Richter's mature artistic and philosophical achievement".
Before the sale, Alex Branczik, senior director of contemporary art at Sotheby's, said of the painting: "Abstraktes Bild is one of the great abstract masterpieces by Gerhard Richter.
"Its appearance on the market presents collectors with the unique opportunity to acquire an outstanding work by one of the greatest living painters."
A sister painting of the artwork is currently jointly owned by the Tate and the National Galleries of Scotland.
Eric Clapton is a known art collector.
Even before the sale, the Sunday Times Rich List estimated the Cream guitarist' s wealth at some £140m, making him the 17th-richest British musician.
He has previously sold off part of his extensive guitar collection to raise money for his rehab clinic, which he founded in 1998 to help treat drug and alcohol addiction.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63473000/jpg/_63473812_63473810.jpg[/IMG]
That's a lot of money for a painting that pretty much anyone can make, it's basically just smeared paint.
A selling point could be that Eric Clapton owned it but £21 million is way to much for something like that.
looks pretty cool to me
i like it
id rather get raped by a gruffalo than spend £21m on it though
i wish i could throw paint on a canvas and make $34+ million
Looks to me like most modern abstract art. You paint something shit, give it some kind of pretentious deep meaning, happen to be famous, and bam you're rich.
I'd rather look at something painted or drawn that actually looks like the object it's supposed to represent.
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;38019541]That's a lot of money for a painting that pretty much anyone can make, it's basically just smeared paint.
A selling point could be that Eric Clapton owned it but £21 million is way to much for something like that.[/QUOTE]
it's a bit hard to create some paint effects like that.
it might look like fingerpaints or a blind child with arthritis did it, but in fact, it's very tough to get something that looks kinda grungy like that to look feasible as a piece of artwork.
just my two cents.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38019569]i wish i could throw paint on a canvas and make $34+ million[/QUOTE]
are you serious dude? it's obvious that it took more thought and skill than throwing buckets of paint at a canvas. it has a bunch of different layers and textures
I like it.
I wouldn't pay $34m for it, but it's still a nice painting.
[QUOTE=IQ-Guldfisk;38019541]That's a lot of money for a painting that pretty much anyone can make, [B]it's basically just smeared paint.[/B]
A selling point could be that Eric Clapton owned it but £21 million is way to much for something like that.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38019569]i wish i could throw paint on a canvas and make $34+ million[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SweetSwifter;38019570]Looks to me like most modern abstract art. You paint something shit, give it some kind of pretentious deep meaning, happen to be famous, and bam you're rich.
I'd rather look at something painted or drawn that actually looks like the object it's supposed to represent.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you guys understand art.
[editline]a[/editline]
Or, at least, the sort of work that goes into making it.
It looks cool and it clearly took some time to paint, but I'm pretty sure the only reason it's worth $21 million is because Clapton owned it.
[QUOTE=SweetSwifter;38019570]Looks to me like most modern abstract art. You paint something shit, give it some kind of pretentious deep meaning, happen to be famous, and bam you're rich.
I'd rather look at something painted or drawn that actually looks like the object it's supposed to represent.[/QUOTE]
You know that it's just as pretentious to say that most modern art is shit, right? It's literally the same as saying that true art is angsty or that true art is incomprehensible.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;38019569]i wish i could throw paint on a canvas and make $34+ million[/QUOTE]
Well if that's what your canvasses look like afterward, you should.
Just because it isn't a portrait doesn't mean it didn't take time or effort
[QUOTE=Beetle179;38019588]I like it.
I wouldn't pay $34m for it, but it's still a nice painting.
I don't think you guys understand art.
[editline]a[/editline]
Or, at least, the sort of work that goes into making it.[/QUOTE]
Art is supposed to illicit a reaction. Their reaction is anger and baffledness.
I'm not saying it's not a nice painting... I just mean in terms of £21,000,00 it's a bit crap.
I'd happily hang it in my lounge, if it was say £50.
It just fascinates me how something like this can be worth 21 million quid. Or even £1,000.
[QUOTE=Scotchair;38019618]I'm not saying it's not a nice painting... I just mean in terms of £21,000,00 it's a bit crap.
I'd happily hang it in my lounge, if it was say £50.
It just fascinates me how something like this can be worth 21 million quid. Or even £1,000.[/QUOTE]
well apparently someone was willing to pay that much so I guess they thought differently
[QUOTE=Scotchair;38019618]
It just fascinates me how something like this can be worth 21 million quid. Or even £1,000.[/QUOTE]
supply, demand, sentiment
[QUOTE=Scotchair;38019618]I'm not saying it's not a nice painting... I just mean in terms of £21,000,00 it's a bit crap.
I'd happily hang it in my lounge, if it was say £50.
It just fascinates me how something like this can be worth 21 million quid. Or even £1,000.[/QUOTE]
The easiest explanation for that is admittedly cliche, but art means different things to different people.
I've seen plenty of supposed "masterpieces" that made me stand back and go "How in the flying fuck could ANYONE think that's good?" I just have to force myself to remember that not everyone sees it how I do.
To some people, it's worth it. Good on them, I suppose, if they've got money to blow that large then that's good on them.
Personally I don't think it's worth $21m but oh well, that's what it was sold for. I think it's neat that one of my favorite musicians owned the piece, and he's done some pretty good things with the money he's got.
[QUOTE=Cone;38019602]You know that it's just as pretentious to say that most modern art is shit, right? It's literally the same as saying that true art is angsty or that true art is incomprehensible.[/QUOTE]
Well, I have yet to see modern art where I liked whatever it was purely from an aesthetic standpoint. There's always someone that has to explain it to me what it means, and I happen to dislike that.
Then again, art is something that's hard to define, and quite a subjective term. So, to rephrase. In my opinion, most modern art is shit. If someone else happens to like it, fine, but I can't see any value in it.
How is that dumb? I work in freelance animation and graphic design right, and the way I price my work is an hourly rate of say £20, plus materials or any additional cost. I'd have to work over a million hours to generate the same cash as this guy did with one painting, which probably took him an afternoon.
Granted, artwork is definitely more valuable than the some of it's parts... and a finished piece of art can evoke all kinds of emotion or reactions in an individual... but £21,000,000 worth of emotion? It's ludicrous. I can't even fathom how something as trivial as smeared colours (which for an even moderately talented painter, isn't difficult to replicate that same texture etc) can be worth such an INSANE amount of money.
All I want to know is, where does that added value come from? Can anybody give me a justified reason why this thing actually costs 21 million pounds?
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38019606]Art is supposed to illicit a reaction. Their reaction is anger and baffledness.[/QUOTE]
Art isn't [I]supposed[/I] to do anything.
And they're not reacting to the painting, they're reacting to the news that it sold for $34; if they choose to be angry and baffled at that, sure, what the hell, go ahead. But if you all think making a painting like this is just "smearing paint on a canvas", go ahead, try it, see how much somebody pays for it.
Before people start getting mad, just remember that art causes different reactions in different people. If this piece made the new owner feel something special, then it wasn't a waste of money.
Personally, I've never been too big on abstract art and I think 21m is outrageous, but that's just me.
i like it.
Looks like a Nine Inch Nails album cover
itt: 14 year olds whos only exposure to art is through video games try to argue about fine art.
btw it's silly to judge the painting based on a low-quality thumbnail. we haven't seen it in person and we don't know the story or process behind it
[QUOTE=Dori;38019720]btw it's silly to judge the painting based on a low-quality thumbnail. we haven't seen it in person and we don't know the story or process behind it[/QUOTE]
wow but its just a bunch of paint on canvas who cares???
i could totally make a better painting!!!
[QUOTE=lotusking;38019699]itt: 14 year olds whos only exposure to art is through video games try to argue about fine art.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TC0thVs0DoI/AAAAAAAAC3w/AfRWy2zTqPo/s1600/StrawMan.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=lotusking;38019699]itt: 14 year olds whos only exposure to art is through video games try to argue about fine art.[/QUOTE]
Do enlighten me. I've spent 6 years at art colleges and universities, and still can't understand how something can be worth this amount of money. It doesn't make sense whatsoever. I just want to know where the sense of value in art comes from.
Think of the size of house you could buy for £21m... the amount of food you could buy for £21m. Unfathomable amounts.
This is what I hate about art, that style of painting could only become famous by having an already big name attached to it, if someone who wasn't already famous tried to sell that bullshit no amount of saying that it expresses their emotions would make anyone want to buy it for 21 million pounds.
[editline]13th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Scotchair;38019735]Do enlighten me. I've spent 6 years at art colleges and universities, and still can't understand how something can be worth this amount of money. It doesn't make sense whatsoever. I just want to know where the sense of value in art comes from.
Think of the size of house you could buy for £21m... the amount of food you could buy for £21m. Unfathomable amounts.[/QUOTE]
Because it has a name brand attached to it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.