I just happened to be browsing the internet, and I stumbled upon this little jem: Number One: No. 5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock Jackson Pollock’s 1948 painting entitled No. 5 1948 was arguably his greatest masterwork, the most vivid expression of the painter’s unique style. When it was sold by David Geffen in 2006, it became the world’s most expensive painting in history at a price-adjusted $149.70 million dollars. * Artist: Jackson Pollock * Year: 1948 * Year of Sale: 2006 * Sale Price: $140 million * Currency Adjusted: $149.70 million What?.....why?....how? I, myself have never taken the art world seriously because of stuff like this, but if anyone can clue me in on why did is the greatest thing since cheese, I'd appreciate it.
Exactly what Draxxus said. It's the name they're buying. A great artist is a great marketer. http://www.gogeometry.com/wonder_world/gol...ock_5_1948.html There is a reason that this painting sold for so much. This painting is so similar to a fractal, that some argue it is one, although this was painted ten years before the Chaos Theory was discovered.
As you know, art mainly only becomes expensive when the artist dies.. Pollock certainly had an original style. You could say "oh well my 5 year old son could do better" but would you actually bother making him go through it all, and waste time and money displaying it in an art gallery? Certainly not; that is what makes an artist an artist. Art is about more than just the picture, its about the culture, ideas etc. behind it all. That is why this painting is worth so much today. The Australian government also bought 'Blue Poles' by Pollock in the 70s, which was seen as a "huge waste of money for something so abstract". But now its worth around 100-150million$, so in a way it was a good investment, as most art is.
He was the first to do it. And he did it better than everyone else. If you're going to point fingers about artists "getting away with it": Point your finger at Tracy Emin, the biggest chancer of an "artist" that ever existed.
art is basically whatever people label it. OH I CHOPPED UP A PLUSH SQUIRREL AND PLATED IT WITH BRONZE SPARKLES IT'S ART!
He probably killed himself like other painters. Then it became worth millions. Load of ----. I've seen better art in a kindergarten room. Oh wait, that's where that is from. 1st grader, I mean. "I took a ---- on paper. I smudged it around with a spoon and my ass. That's me on that canvas. Parts of ME. Or what used to be me. Bam, art." I'm deep...
My 5 yr old can do that same thing. Guess I can become a Millionaire now. Thats plan crazy, and crap like this doesn't make any sense to me.
The painting had a major influence back then in the abstract art scene, not so much anymore because it's a style that's already overdone.
You forget that most modern art appreciators don't have a lick of talent themselves, therefore the art becomes less about whether or not they could do it themselves, but what bullsh!t meaning they can pull from it. This piece was probably only popular because it was controversial, and it was probably only controversial because all the rest of his works were so much worse.
Ignoring the great cost of his piece, Pollock was famous while he was alive. Pullock, instead of using his wrist to paint, used his whole body and painted on a canvas on the floor instead of using an easel. And, while I find myself unimpressed with the result, I would be interested in watching him create one of these paintings. He was one of or possibly the first to use his technique and a major influence on the abstract expressionism movement. And, while you guys may mock his paintings, I bet that he was still a great traditional artist as well. I can't find any of his sketches from younger years, but I've always found that abstract artists choose to do abstract instead of traditional, when they are quite good at both. That aside, I still wouldn't pay that much for a painting. And Inverse is right about art appreciators as well.