What can $135 million buy?

Klimtadeleblochbauer

That is an all-time record, the buyer is Ronald S. Lauder, here is the story.  Here is my post on what $100 million can buy.

Comments

I once had a job which involved, amongst other things, arranging liability cover for travelling exhibitions coming to NZ art gallerys/museums/etc.

The difference in total valuations between the painting exhibitions and anything else was amazing. Art work cover was in the hundreds of millions. Dinosaur bones - a few million.

I don't really get why art is so madly expensive.

Surreal moment: I am alone, face-to-face with a subpar Rothko that still costs more than all the money I'll make in my life.

You sound like a pretentious clown with that diatribe on modern art.

Maybe my aesthetic eye is weaker than yours or maybe I am a $100mm or don't know it but I found most classical art to be uninspiring. Some truly stands out and is breathtaking, most is measured and boring, and gives me a glimpse into what life would be like if God told me that everyday I would have peanut butter & jelly for lunch and nothing. Decent, not horrible, but nothing that lets me get my gastronomy on. Kandinsky, Miro, seeing their stuff in person has moved. Even seeing them online has moved me. I find them aesthetically pleasing and I know nothing and care to know less about the men who created the art, whatever sexual picadillos I could uncover and which seem to be one of your primary interests,

I don't think this particular painting is an aesthetically great painting and I don't really care. People pay more for less. Everyday people line up to buy negative expected value lotto tickets which have no chance of appreciating and store no value, unlike art. If you were to look at purchases on famous art pieces, I bet that it an asset class which has generated returns superior to most investments. The purchases of such art should be applauded as either master pyramind hyper scam participants or superior investors or both.

Go see this Klimt. Ravishing. No reproduction can do much more than hint at the stunning contrast between the flesh and the gold...

Johnny,

You sound like a pretentious clown, period. Modern Art sucks and so do the pretentious clowns who pretend to see anything in it. If colored squares move you so much, you must have orgasms when you see a Rubik's cube. I'm sure you're a sucker for other advertising BS as well. I'm just glad you're not smart, crooked, or hardworking enough to show us how ignorantly you can separate yourself from $135 million. I'm not really interested in your emotions. I'm interested in what work is seen, valued, and passed down as good to succeding generations. And I enjoy the good stuff in the meantime. Colored square paintings are crap, just ask anybody. Good argument, that a Klimt painting isn't as good as a lottery ticket. Make sure you wear a helmet into the shower next time, you moron.

Being that aesthetic appreciation of art is such a subjective experience, academic, critical, dealer, & gallery influence notwithstanding, the price a person is willing to pay may less to do with 'market value' and more on the collectors unique desires.

Trying to justify a monetary value for an artwork and it's 'actual value' as a spiritual/cultural/emotional/aesthetic object is not a very direct process, and given some of the above factors others have listed, can't be taken very seriously in this light.

At times valuing art seems to be the most arbitrary economic practice. Sometimes it's better to just laugh at what the extremely wealthy will pay for things.

Comments for this post are closed