$104.3 Mill for that?

[VintageComics]

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

 

All you need to understand is that it's all about me.

 

[ft88]

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.

 

I suppose. And I certainly have my issues with many modern art pieces as well as some of the attitudes, high brow or otherwise. I think it's more than art history and the high brow attitude about modern artl, though. The way I think of it is this. Up to about Cezanne and certainly Picasso painting was (mostly) judged on how close to reality it was. But once photography became more and more accessible painting of reality became kind of pointless. So you get Impressionism to Cubism onward to modern art. The whole point of every one of these movements was to view the world "in a different way"

 

And Duchamp epitomizes that completely. Sure it's easy to laugh at the urinal but if we allow ourselves to open our minds to what it meant and represents and how the artist allows us to view the world differently then it becomes much more impressionable.

 

Still, if you don't buy it (intellectually) the you don't buy it. Fair enough. But at least explore it before passing a cursory judgement.

 

 

[TFL-migration]

How much do you think the original art for AF #15 would fetch?

 

I would imagine it would bring at least 6 figures...

 

The OA for AF 15 is without a doubt in my mind, in the millions of dollars. If it were to be put up for 6 figures. The seller would be trampled on trying to make the sale!! The buyer couldn't get the money to the seller quick enough....

[FatComicMafia]

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.

 

I think there several bidders that were trying for the to 30-50 million mark on the Giocometti. You're right, from there it might be about a couple of folks, trying to prove they have a bigger package than Steve Borock!

 

Also, your post sounds like someone that comes from the financial world. Strictly an investment, rational minus the soul... at times. If you have that perspective than there certainly are parallels with the comic market, CGC single highest graded prices etc. Also, the Johnny come lately, like Hirst, Richard Prince, or the terrible Koons, are not on the same level as Giocometti etc

Thats like comparing a Hulk # 340 vs Hulk # 181 vs Action #1.

 

There were a lot of artists deemed valid in their day that often sit for the better part of the century at the Met's storage area, currently. Prince, Koons, and Hirst have the gallery Mafia and certain investors trying to protect their stock. Not much different than the performance of certain comic book auction prices.

 

 

[FatComicMafia]

I blame DuChamp!

 

 

Duchamp might very well have been the the most important artist ( on a conceptual level) in the 20th century. I would say Picasso might get the nod overall.