this painting sold for $54 million

[lovejoy]

They have to be kidding, I wouldn't swop a bag of sherbet lemons for this piece of junk.

Am I missing the point here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/paintingflowers/p aintings/sunflowers_van_gogh.shtml

[warpig3]

You think that is bad, take a look at this, the most expensive painting in the world to date.

what a load of sh*te.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/61115 26.stm

[warpig3]

Prior to Pollock this was the most expensive, and I for one can appreciate its beauty.

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/K/klimt/klimt _bloch-bauer1.jpg.html

[jake-the-peg]

Well I happen to be a big fan of Jackson Pollock although he was far from consistant and some of his art is a lot better than others.

But yes you are missing the point - the point is Tulips.

As I'm sure you know, in the 17th Century tulips became immensly fashionable - bulbs changed hands for small fortunes and in some cases for large ones.

It didn't matter what you paid because you could sell them for more - then the bubble burst and those left holding the stock lost everything.

Same thing happened 100 years later with stocks in the "south sea island bubble" and 10 years ago in the "dot com boom"

People pay that kind of money only because they have confidence that other people will pay the same or more for it because they in turn have the same confidence. It's like a banknote.

That's why living painters aren't worth as much they can create more, devaluing their existing art - a bit like the way printing more money causes inflation.

The difference between art and tulips is that art has been able to maintain confidence over hundreds of years.

The mistake you're making is to equate the value of the art to it's value as a decorative item like a piece of wall paper.

Nobody pays that sort of money because it'd look good on their wall next to their collection of china dogs it's an investment

[mightywease]

Before I saw "Sunflowers" - or at least one of the four paintings - in the flesh as it were I had only seen reproductions of it on postcards, biscuit tins, umbrellas etc.. and I was rather underwhelmed by it as an image.

However seeing it in situ it - as did most of Van Gogh's work - took my breath away, The energy of the brushstokes and the emotion he has invetsed in the picture really junps out at you. And the texture of the paint, thickly applied, gives the painting a whole new dimension. His work close up is visceral, emotional, quite amazing. And the hindsight of knowing his life and tragic early death adds to ones feelings about the paintings themselves.

However, what I really love about art is that it provokes a reaction - whether it's love or hate - and that , for me, is what I think the purpose of art should be. So for me I don't think you've missed the point. You have reacted to it in an emotional way. As to whether it is worth �54m I think it is priceless but there are other pictures loved by many that I wouldn't swap a bag of sherbert for!

[pingping]

not so much pollock but b0ll0cks surely? the 'painting' posted by warpig is truly awful! where is the talent in dripping paint?

i love van gogh's paintings - now he had talent (even if he was slightly loony!)

[jake-the-peg]

Try this one

http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications /newsletters/17_3/newsletter2.html

again it's hard to appreciate small scale on a screen but it's in the Tate and is brilliant.

There's an amazing rythm and the impression of dancers

And before anybody says "I could do that" - I could write the Harry Potter books too - how much do you think they'd pay me?

[jno]

there's already been a bubble in painting prices, about 20 years ago - businessmen (Japanese especially) paid huge prices, hung the paintings in a safe somewhere and in some cases ended up putting them quietly back on the market at a loss. Tastes come and go a bit; Van Goghs have been much appreciated, and expensive, for decades, but you could have got a Pollock much more cheaply than that 20 years ago; modern art has only recently become super-expensive. Not a Pollock person myself, but I do love Van Goghs.

[pingping]

jake - have to admit that the second pollock painting is quite nice.

[LeMarchand]

The point is that some people have way too much money...

[sense4all]

Buy a masterpiece of the future :
http://www.affordableartfair.co.uk/index.html

[jake-the-peg]

That looks good sense (Sorry I'll get me coat)

Shame it was 2 weeks ago! Looks like there's another in October though

[sense4all]

Smacking your legs ( all of them ) Jakey- baby. You can always go to one of the others ...New York is in a fortnight ,cheeky!
I would not presume to pick a destination for the good folk of AB - did it kill ya to click the button hun?

Good job I still love ya!!! lol

[lovejoy]

The more I read from art critics the more I realise that they are just pretentious know nothing half wits .

FFS coco the clown could have painted a better bowl of flowers than this piece of cr&p

[dorletta109]

The world's most expensive piece of art ... could be one of the three paintings of Dogma�l DAMIEN
that are for sale 150 000 000 euros (�)
in France and can be bought there : www.billionairepainting.com