This is topic Picasso Portrait Fetches $95.2 Million in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004623

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 05-04-2006, 01:28 PM:
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12627809/

I guess that there is a sucker born every minute! $95.2 million for that crap? LOL!

K
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 05-05-2006, 08:17 AM:
 
What a piece of crap, only proves that you could sell a turd for a mil if you called it art.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-05-2006, 09:55 AM:
 
That picture remonds me of the Picasso "Plane Crash" sculpture thats located at Chicago's Civic Center

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-05-2006, 11:07 AM:
 
I'll bet if he had a portrait of his mistress threading up an old Motiograph in his screening room, you'd guys be all droolin over that!
 

---

Posted by Nick Scott (Member # 2850) on 05-09-2006, 05:35 AM:
 
I dont think i would piss on that if it was on fire.
 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-09-2006, 06:45 AM:
 
I think that the portrait of "Dora Maar" is magnificent. Matter of fact I have one hanging in my home.

Of course the operative word is "Maar".

Worth every penny of 95.2 million.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2006, 08:21 AM:
 
One thing obviously being left out of this thread is the fact Picasso wasn't charging people those insane amounts of money for a painting or drawing.

The real insults need to be cast against the asshole speculators who make fortunes off art rather than the artists themselves.

It's also wierd that the paintings from Van Gogh and Picasso grabbing up record prices are actually much lesser known works. By the ridiculous measure being applied, the Picasso originals hanging in MOMA in NY are worth billions. They're much more significant works.

Whether you like or hate Picasso's work, he is the most important artist of the 20th century.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 05-09-2006, 09:01 AM:
 
I don't care how high speculative art prices become. I'm not paying for it. If I want to see art, I go to an art museum. If I want a particular piece I am perfectly willing to go with a print or reproduction. But mostly I appreciate original art in peoples homes with a good story behind it. Like picking up the Elvis on Black Velvet at the state fair while on your first date with your future spouse or something. I also appreciate photographs. So go ahead and pay $95.2M. Also don't forget the 10% auction fee.


But jeez Bob, your sister sure is ugly!
 

---

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 05-09-2006, 09:08 AM:
 
Y U K !
 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 05-09-2006, 09:31 AM:
 
Ian....That's my wife!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2006, 10:08 AM:
 

quote: Ian Price

---

I don't care how high speculative art prices become. I'm not paying for it.

---

I'm certainly not paying for it either. But I sense the venom in this thread is being wrongfully misdirected into what sounds like a broad anti-art kick when the true problem lies elsewhere.

For instance, want a really good vintage guitar? Dreaming of buying a good Pre-CBS made Fender Stratocaster. Keep dreaming unless you're willing to shell out an unbelievable amount of money. Hundreds of those things are languishing away in vaults after being bought up by speculators who don't even listen to guitar-oriented music, much less know how to play.

Speculators are also what's killing people at the gas pumps. They're also responsible for the nice property tax price hikes a lot of people are paying in quite a few real estate markets. Yeah, it may be great for your home to be worth a lot more money on paper, but then the county assessor comes along with that nice tax hike. And it's a bitch if your income isn't up to paying it. My parents are fairly sore about the hike they saw for their place in Colorado Springs.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-09-2006, 10:50 AM:
 
So bobby, you dont have any of your money in investments? Stocks, bonds, etc?
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 05-09-2006, 12:32 PM:
 
My original purpose of starting this thread was to look at this thing (?) that is supposed to be art??????

To me REAL art are people like http://archive.dstc.edu.au/BDU/staff/ron/prime99/
or
http://www.rgmwatches.com/engine.html

these are just a few examples. How can one compare the quality and craftsmanship of a fine furniture maker to crap like Jackson Pollack???????

I have always found it interesting that the so called "art experts" can psycobabble about how great Picasso, Pollaack and those of similar ilk are, yet they diss on artists like rockwell or Kinkade. And yet Rockwell and Kinkade are two of the most p[opular artists in history.

K
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 05-09-2006, 04:51 PM:
 
Whether one likes a certain painting/artist or not is beside the point. Picasso's work was bold and innovative, that is why it is highly regarded.

Fine art is no different than many other collectable items such as antique furniture or classic/luxury cars. Rare or one of a kind items will always go for a premium price. It's a prestige/bragging rights/ego thing for the owner.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 05-09-2006, 05:42 PM:
 
Rockwell Kinkade Every picture that is famous has a story.....Dona Maar was the most famous of his girlfriends and was a famous photographer and artist in Europe in the 1930's / 50's. He had several girlfriends over his long life and some of changes in his art style where from their influence. Picasso knew the value of his works since he did not divorce his wife which would have taken 1/2 of his value under French law, where he spend many years of his life.
Art value is in the eye of the beholder and a good story or heritage helps
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 05-09-2006, 06:56 PM:
 
Sometimes I'm amazed at prices people will pay for stuff, like a 1950 Futurliner tour bus at last years Barrett Jackson auction here in Scottsdale, whihc sold for over $4 million. I'll shake my head but then remember, if I had that guys kind of money, I'd be buying cars too, as well as other stuff.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2006, 07:07 PM:
 

quote: Mike Heenan

---

So Bobby, you dont have any of your money in investments? Stocks, bonds, etc?

---

quote: Will Kutler

---

I have always found it interesting that the so called "art experts" can psycobabble about how great Picasso, Pollaack and those of similar ilk are, yet they diss on artists like rockwell or Kinkade. And yet Rockwell and Kinkade are two of the most p[opular artists in history.

---

Norman Rockwell is one of the greatest illustrators who ever lived. But he was not the first to make paintings that approached photo-realism or captured the "slice of life" kind of thing.

Lots of people who take pride in not being experts in art typically judge paintings by whether they look like a photograph or not. And the paintings are crap if they don't look like a photograph or at least appear to have taken a great degree of skill to create. Frankly, I think that's a very closed-minded point of view.

Photo-realism in painting was more important in the 18th and 19th centuries because there were no cameras.

Once cameras proliferated in the 1800s there was little point for many highly skilled artists to pursue photo realism. If they wanted something that looked like a photograph they would take a photograph.

Many of the greatest illustrators of the 20th century, such as Rockwell, did work you could not achieve with a camera. They would exaggerate proportions of figures, warp perspective, amplify or mute color or get a more edgy look by being deliberately messy with the drawing or paint strokes. Rockwell did very precise and humourous illustrations. But he also did darker works that drew inspiration from people like Picasso and Van Gogh. Google his illustration of "Southern Justice," a work that appeared in a June, 1965 issue of Look magazine. It's not photo-realistic at all. But it is a pretty emotional piece and one of his more important works.

Fundamentally, visual art is more about communicating a feeling or emotion (and finding new visual ways to do it) rather than simply copying real life.

Picasso was the first to do a lot of things in fine art. In fine art, you score a lot more points by being innovative. All of the "great artists" through time have been innovators more than anything else. Picasso certainly did not have the best painterly skill, but he pioneered techniques like cubism and almost single-handedly swept aside the era of impressionism that had held for decades. He's the first guy most people think of when the term "modern art" is mentioned.

To use another analogy, let's bring up Jimi Hendrix.

Many rock music fans feel Jimi Hendrix is the greatest guitar player who ever lived. If one were to listen to his playing from a strictly clinical standpoint, why would so many be impressed? He's not especially precise or very fast in his playing. Guys like Eric Clapton, Richie Blackmoor and Edward Van Halen (or even non-rock guys like Al DiMeola) could play circles around Hendrix.

Hendrix' legend endures because he innovated. He brought about a whole new way of playing the electric guitar no one ever heard before. And every rock guitarist who has played since owes some influence to the guy. Just like Citizen Kane changed the language of filmmaking, Hendrix changed the language of electric guitar.
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-09-2006, 07:36 PM:
 
Speculators, in general, are good for the economy. They lower the risk of certain activites, like exploring for oil or planting crops.

If the producers of commodities did not know that they could sell their products for a certain price at a later date, then the producers will produce less of that risky commodity. The risk gets transfered to the speculator, who is guessing what the future price will be, and who is usually better able to handle the loss if he or she is wrong.

Society at large benefits because we get more wheat, or oil, or whatever.

The producers benefit because they know they are going to get paid a certain price for their product.

The speculators benefit on any profits they may make. Let it be said that speculators often lose, because no one can see 100% into the future.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2006, 07:44 PM:
 
There's a lot of people who bought high in many housing markets and they're going to get hosed. Warren Buffet had a nice comment about that and speculation in general: fools often finish what wise men started.
 

---

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 05-09-2006, 08:00 PM:
 
Hi Mike

I remember that Futureliner also!

The design and production of automobiles takes many different art-forms and crafts-skills....and of course ENGINEERING!

But there are differences between a mass-produced car...and a one-off hand-built custom such as a Duesenberg, Packard, Rolls....etc.

Ray Dietrich of coach-designing fame could run circles around Picasso as far as artwork is concerned!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-09-2006, 09:44 PM:
 
Ray Dietrich versus Picasso sounds like an apples to oranges comparison.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 05-12-2006, 12:09 AM:
 
Was down in San Francisco yesterday and ran in to an old friend. Perhaps you've seen her hanging around the forum.



This is Dora Maar!

I ran in to her while wandering around the De Young Museum in Golden Gate Park. You never know who you might meet in an Art Museum. Bob, you have a hot wife!

I don't think she would mind me posting this photo, she took it herself. However my cell phone photo of it on the wall is something else. You can see me and my cell phone reflected in the glass. Hey, it's sort of cubist.
 

---