• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Which would you rather have.

Started by spider9698,

31 posts in this topic

spider9698

spider9698

Posted
Posted

A friend just sent me a link to this.

 

Link

 

I just recently picked up a similarly themed painting by Jeff Jones.

 

Couch.jpg

 

I dont know about you, but I would have an easier time convincing my wife to hang this is our living room than this:

 

Freud.jpg

 

I also saved about $33.59 million by going with the Jones.

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brandolsn

brandolsn

Posted
Posted
A friend just sent me a link to this.

 

Link

 

I just recently picked up a similarly themed painting by Jeff Jones.

 

Couch.jpg

 

I dont know about you, but I would have an easier time convincing my wife to hang this is our living room than this:

 

Freud.jpg

 

I also saved about $33.59 million by going with the Jones.

Thoughts?

I'll take the Jones thank you. 33.6M seems like a lot for a 13 year old painting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted

You'll get no arguments from me that the Jones is superior! The contemporary art market is, in my opinion, the biggest bubble market on the planet - it makes even the most overpriced real estate look downright cheap. And the standards by which people judge modern and contemporary art are just lost on me.

 

But, get this - I had a very interesting conversation recently with my girlfriend, who is an artist (of the contemporary gallery variety). I was professing my love and admiration for Jeff Jones' masterpiece "Blind Narcissus" and asked her what she thought of the piece. Make sure you are sitting down when you read what her response was - she derisively called it..."CHOCOLATE BOX ART". :o :o :o

 

In her opinion, the painting is very technically competent and aesthetically pleasing, like the kind of artwork you see...on a box of chocolates. doh! However, it doesn't really break any new ground or win high marks for originality in her book. Now, you can imagine my shock at hearing her talk about one of my favorite pieces of art in this manner!

 

After much protestation, I calmed down and thought about what she had said and tried to understand her point of view. To some extent, I have to admit she is right - truly great art is more than just pretty to look at and technically competent. It also makes you think and is groundbreaking in nature. Does "Blind Narcissus" rise to that lofty standard? Probably not, I have to concede. We were just at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in March and saw the John Everett Millais (he being the Pre-Raphaelite painter of "Ophelia") exhibition there. "Blind Narcissus" would not have looked at all out of place among Millais' work - however, the latter were painted more than 100 years earlier, when such work would have been considered groundbreaking.

 

What I can't agree with, though, is her diminishing the technical mastery of Jones' work - even if it doesn't break new ground, the execution is superb and is worthy of our admiration and praise. Should it be valued as much as the less aesthetically pleasing Lucien Freud portraits? Maybe not, but the valuation gap is just ridiculous. And, I agree wholeheartedly about which I'd rather have to look at in my house... (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spider9698

spider9698

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Two points:

1) Gene, you need a new girlfriend (just kidding)

2) I have emailed Christies to see if they would be interested in selling the Jones painting in their next Modern art sale. C'mon, dont you think someone somewhere would think they were getting a bargain if they bought it at, say, a cool million?!?!?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted

More on the contemporary art market:

 

 

May 15 2008 3:25AM EDT

Conde Nast Portfolio

Art: The Last Unburst Bubble

 

Christie's sale on Tuesday night was a stunning success, ratifying the ridiculous levels to which contemporary art has soared in recent years. The Sotheby's sale on Wednesday night, by contrast, took the market to a whole new level. Not only isn't this market crashing, it looks very much as though the bubble is still inflating.

 

The big news of the evening was the $86.3 million fetched by Francis Bacon's Triptych, 1976 - a sum which alone accounted for 24% of the $362 million total from 73 successfully-sold lots. (Or, to put it another way, if it weren't for that one Bacon, Sotheby's would have once again fallen behind Christie's in value of art sold at the flagship contemporary sale.) Bacon seems to be moving well into the A-list, alongside the likes of Picasso, Matissse, Pollock, and Johns. And in the wake of the sale of a Lucian Freud painting for $33.6 million on Tuesday, one could almost spot an Old British Artists trend going on. I wonder if a major Hockney might come up for auction soon.

 

The most astonishing datapoint, however, was not the Bacon, but rather the $15.2 million paid for Takashi Murakami's My Lonesome Cowboy - a kitschily unforgettable piece which I doubt the NYT would ever illustrate. Kelly Crow reports that Murakami, watching from a skybox, hollered "Banzai!" when the sculpture was sold: good for him, there's no reason to pretend to be blasé about such a spectacular price. (The estimate was just $3m-$4m.) It's worth bearing in mind that there are five of these sculptures in existence (one's at the Brooklyn Museum right now) and that really each one is only half of a pair. If a genuine Murakami masterpiece came up for auction, it would probably fetch substantially more, but I don't think Stevie Cohen is selling.

 

Besides Bacon and Murakami, sixteen - count 'em - other artists set new auction records, many with works which were far from their best. Robert Smithson's Alogon #3 obliterated its $1m-$2m estimate, selling for $4.3 million. And a fair-to-middling Brice Marden, Glyphs, sold for $4.3 million, probably one of the works that collector Adam Lindemann was talking about when he said that "not all the works were the best". The sum might be an auction record, but I'm quite sure Mardens have privately changed hands for more.

 

The part of the auction I'm happiest about is the eight-figure sums being fetched by European minimalists finally getting their due. A Piero Manzoni white monochrome sold for $10.1 million, while an Yves Klein gold monochrome was bid up to an astonishing $23.6 million. That's pure art-historical importance right there: anybody can cover a canvas in gold leaf.

 

So far, I haven't seen much speculation as to who bought the Bacon, but it's bound to emerge sooner rather than later. The buyer helped make a little bit of history last night; I hope he's not regretting it this morning.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted

And yet another sign of the Apocalypse...high prices are not necessarily indicative of a healthy market in my opinion... :juggle:

 

 

Bacon Triptych Sells for Record $86.3 Million in N.Y. (Update1)

 

By Lindsay Pollock and Philip Boroff

 

 

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Francis Bacon's celadon-green three- paneled painting of a headless man devoured by vultures fetched $86.3 million tonight at Sotheby's in New York, becoming the most expensive contemporary artwork ever sold at auction.

 

Bacon's ``Triptych, 1976'' was inspired by Greek mythology and the artist's own angst, Sotheby's said. Estimated to fetch about $70 million, it was sold about a third of the way into Sotheby's 83-lot contemporary art auction. The sale featured major works by Yves Klein, Takashi Murakami and Donald Judd.

 

The Bacon surpassed Mark Rothko's lyrical abstract 1950 ``White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose),'' which brought in $72.8 million a year ago at Sotheby's in New York. Sold by banker and philanthropist David Rockefeller, it held the record for the most expensive contemporary artwork at auction.

 

Bacon died in 1992, and prices for his works at auction have soared of late. His previous record was $52.7 million, for a swirling red Pope-like figure in the 1962 ``Study for Innocent X.'' It sold at Sotheby's in New York in May 2007.

 

Tonight's Bacon was sold by a European collector who acquired the painting in 1977 at the Paris Galerie Claude Bernard. The buyer was a private European telephone bidder.

 

Bacon's work has had a big week. Last night at a Christie's International contemporary-art sale, his ``Three Studies for Self-Portrait'' sold for $28 million.

 

Rauschenberg Work

 

Also tonight, Robert Rauschenberg's 1963 oil-and-silkscreen canvas ``Overdrive,'' with images of New York stop signs and office buildings, fetched $14.6 million, near the presale high estimate of $15 million. The artist died on Monday at age 82.

 

Sales at this evening's auction totaled $362 million, including commissions, topping the estimated range of $288.1 million to $356.7 million.

 

Prices include a buyer's commission of 25 percent of the hammer price up to $20,000, 20 percent of the price from $20,000 to $500,000 and 12 percent above $500,000. Estimates do not reflect commissions.

 

Phillips de Pury's & Co.'s contemporary art auction will be held tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delekkerste

delekkerste

Posted
Posted

Well, if Christie's says no, try Sotheby's (I'm back as a shareholder again and am loving what these wack-job art prices are doing for the stock the past couple of days :applause:) . If that doesn't work, maybe you should have Jones splash some paint or blood or something on the piece and see if that changes their minds. No, no, no, wait - have Jones stick the painting and some dead animal together in a giant glass vat of formaldehyde - you'll clear $2 mil easy! :acclaim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing