$104.3 Mill for that?

[october]

From AOL News:

(Feb. 3) – A sculpture by Swiss artist Alberto Giacometti broke the world record price for a work of art sold at auction, fetching an astounding $104.3 million Wednesday.

 

Titled "Walking Man 1," Giacometti's Impressionistic, 6-foot-tall bronze was sold by Sotheby's in London to an undisclosed buyer.

 

The piece itself looks like a slapped together twisted stick figure to me.

 

Is this hobby such a small gnat on the back of a rat on the foot of an elephant that we can never ever hope for a book to sell in the mill+ range? But fine art, whatever the distinction is, has seemingly limitless funds for not the piece of art itself, but the statement, this is an xxx mill dollar thing?

 

Makes as much sense as paying $100mil+ for a Pollack or de Kooning, or $50mil+ for a Bacon or Rothko....which is to say none at all. At least Jasper Johns' work is generally pleasing to the eye. That can't be said for much of the output of the above artists. Oh, and ALL of the above make more sense than $8mil for The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living.

 

Then again, I don't pretend to understand the appeal of most modern art. To each his own.

[Sal]

maybe "the appeal of modern art" is less about aesthetic than it is about prestige?

 

it's what it seems like to me, anyway

[october]

maybe "the appeal of modern art" is less about aesthetic than it is about prestige?

 

it's what it seems like to me, anyway

 

Maybe, or maybe it's a cult of personality thing in Pollack's case, or the fact that certain artists or pieces ushered in a new art movement, or maybe art buyers are just lemmings. Who knows. I will never have a tenth of a billion to drop on a painting that looks like an abstract fat female gargoyle, so it's pretty much moot anyway.

[delekkerste]

At that price, it's just a big you from one billionaire to another. It has everything to do with ego and nothing to do with sanity or reality. There are no real parallels to be drawn to the comic market from this.

 

People should not be fooled - while it's these eye-grabbing sales that capture the public's attention, most fine art does not sell for millions (let alone tens or hundreds of millions) and prices are down 50% or more in many cases from the peak levels of a couple of years ago. I guarantee you that no one is paying 2007 prices for Richard Prince's "Nurse" paintings or Damien Hirst's "spin" paintings anymore.

 

For all the krazy talk about "hard assets", the U.S. dollar is on a rampaging tear, money+credit growth is actually shrinking despite the paranoiacs' ramblings about money printing and hyperinflation (that would be you, Roy ), while gold, commodity, art, property and other "hard asset" markets are all muddling along at best, or plummeting at worst. From an investment perspective, I don't find art or collectibles to be an appealing proposition at all.

[fantastic_four]

It wouldn't be the book itself, it'd be the original art.

 

I have zero interest in original art to key books. Most comic collectors have little interest in OA. They want the comic.

 

Any Marvel fan who would take a copy of AF # 15 over the OA is

 

I disagree--there is a significant aesthetic difference between original and finished art. I used to work as a graphic artist for my university's newspaper creating advertisements and assembling together the final newspaper, and I thought the same thing then, that the finished product was a LOT more attractive than the pieced-together, cut-up hunks of art we would glue onto the pages. Original comic art isn't colored, has hastily-drawn notes in the margins, and has stuff glued together all over the page. Can't you see the lack of visual and tactile aesthetic appeal to that type of artistic artifact?

 

There are two fundamental reasons a high-grade comic book collector might go for high grade--because they think the comic looks better, or because they just like owning something that's rare. Original art does NOT look better than the finished copy, except that it's quite a bit larger. The primary appeal of original art is owning something that's unique, with a secondary appeal of owning something that the original artists touched and directly interacted with, which brings you a lot closer to the piece than a comic copy ever could. However, it looks quite a bit worse than the finished comic...and that's the non-crazy reason that someone would justifiably prefer a comic copy to original art. It's the main reason I haven't gotten into original art myself.

 

I'm not trying to argue whether collecting comics or original art is better than the other, just trying to express why some people would prefer comics with good reason. I can absolutely see myself collecting original art once I'm tired of constantly upgrading my Marvel runs.

[Transplant]

Makes as much sense as paying $100mil+ for a Pollack or de Kooning, or $50mil+ for a Bacon or Rothko....which is to say none at all. . . .

 

Then again, I don't pretend to understand the appeal of most modern art. To each his own.

I happen to like Mark Rothko's work.

[MisterX]

 

 

I like it.

 

Giacometti rocks!

 

[Stronguy]

Do you mean this?

 

 

Sure why not.

 

That looks like a larger version something a friend of mine made in auto shop with the mig welder. I wonder if he could have gotten a few hundred grand for it. It was only 6" tall.

[Silver Surfer]

Just thin for $100M you could build one of the biggest luxurty estates anywhere in the world or spend it on a piece of art that looks like it was made from dried turds.

[Monkeyman]

Just thin for $100M you could build one of the biggest luxurty estates anywhere in the world or spend it on a piece of art that looks like it was made from dried turds.

 

If you can afford the piece you can afford to build a $100M estate for it to live in. These guys don't care what the price is, they just want it.

 

Mike

[october]

Makes as much sense as paying $100mil+ for a Pollack or de Kooning, or $50mil+ for a Bacon or Rothko....which is to say none at all. . . .

 

Then again, I don't pretend to understand the appeal of most modern art. To each his own.

I happen to like Mark Rothko's work.

 

Liking it is one thing. Thinking a painting with three "color fields" is worth the annual GDP of a small nation is quite another.

[ft88]

I'll come to the defense of modern art and the crazy money spent on it.

 

Many of these rich cats want something bigger than life and a feeling, not necessarily, of something more than the usual mundane humdrum of every day life.

 

Once you go down the road that art is something bigger - it defines what is great and wonderful about society, then pieces like this become something, not just unique but defining to the human race.

 

Certainly there is a feedback look among the rich. In that the first $1 Million piece was crazy money, then $5 MM, then $10 MM, then $50 MM, then $100 MM. We see that in a small scale among comics. Who woulda thunk an FF 112 could be a $10,000 comic.

 

Anyway, take an art history class without the cynic glasses on and you can at least appreciate why some items, even modern art, are special. Special beyond belief. This piece easily qualifies.

 

Ed

[Marvelfangirl]

If UBER-rich people are willing to pay much for THAT,then maybe I can make one just like that and sell it for $100 mill

[ft88]

sigh.

 

Or I can sell a reprint of Action 1 for $300k.

[october]

Anyway, take an art history class without the cynic glasses on and you can at least appreciate why some items, even modern art, are special. Special beyond belief. This piece easily qualifies.

 

I think this portion of your post hits the disconnect right on the head. There was a time when "special" art didn't require immersion in art history to appreciate it. I don't need a graduate degree from the Art Institute of Chicago for my jaw to drop at the colors in a Van Gogh's, or the beauty and realism of a Rembrandt. When people say "my 10 year old could have done that" they are really saying "I don't feel any emotion when looking at this". I think it's unfortunate that art has become so utterly high brow that the average person is left scratching their head when faced with it.

[Schmakt]

I blame DuChamp!

[qualitycomix]

For all the krazy talk about "hard assets", the U.S. dollar is on a rampaging tear, money+credit growth is actually shrinking despite the paranoiacs' ramblings about money printing and hyperinflation (that would be you, Roy ), while gold, commodity, art, property and other "hard asset" markets are all muddling along at best, or plummeting at worst. From an investment perspective, I don't find art or collectibles to be an appealing proposition at all.

 

When people have been scared in the past, they would generally run to the strongest fiat currency, in this case the US Dollar. That is what is happening now. They see what is happening in Greece and how that can have a ripple effect on the rest of the Eurozone and subsequently the world. So they run to the US Dollar. But that only lasts so long and with the way the US is deficit spending, it will catch up to the Dollar's long term viability eventually.

 

When the Dollar gets stronger, that puts pressure on all hard assets, especially commodities and metals. But the more important reason art, property and collectibles are shrinking in value is due to the credit market collapse, so that part I agree with you on.

[Silver Surfer]

Just thin for $100M you could build one of the biggest luxurty estates anywhere in the world or spend it on a piece of art that looks like it was made from dried turds.

 

If you can afford the piece you can afford to build a $100M estate for it to live in. These guys don't care what the price is, they just want it.

 

Mike

 

Oh I know obviously the guy that bought this can afford to buy this kind of stuff but I think it would be easier and more fun to burn $100M at a bonfire party than to have to write that check to pay for that piece of "art". You could have the biggest crack party ever with that kind of cheddar!

[MutantKeys]

At that price, it's just a big you from one billionaire to another. It has everything to do with ego and nothing to do with sanity or reality. There are no real parallels to be drawn to the comic market from this.

 

People should not be fooled - while it's these eye-grabbing sales that capture the public's attention, most fine art does not sell for millions (let alone tens or hundreds of millions) and prices are down 50% or more in many cases from the peak levels of a couple of years ago. I guarantee you that no one is paying 2007 prices for Richard Prince's "Nurse" paintings or Damien Hirst's "spin" paintings anymore.

 

For all the krazy talk about "hard assets", the U.S. dollar is on a rampaging tear, money+credit growth is actually shrinking despite the paranoiacs' ramblings about money printing and hyperinflation (that would be you, Roy ), while gold, commodity, art, property and other "hard asset" markets are all muddling along at best, or plummeting at worst. From an investment perspective, I don't find art or collectibles to be an appealing proposition at all.

Hopefully after this semester I'll finally understand what the hell you're saying

[comicparadox]

I blame DuChamp!

 

He titled this urinal, "Fountain", and to compound the irony, signed it "Mutt, 1917".

 

Amazingly, this sculpture is a reproduction of the original piece. Surprisingly, the original work was accidently misplaced after the original exhibit. It is presumed it was discarded since it was thought to be a broken urinal. True.