Jackson Pollock - $140million

[sp1814]

Sold by David Geffen in a private deal, this is now the most expensive painting ever.

I couldn't find a link to the actual painting, but it looks a lot like this:

http://www.albrightknox.org/ArtStart/art/K1956 _7.jpg

Now...I live in Islington and I have a lot of mates who like this, and in their company I pretend to as well...but I don't...and I don't get it...can someone please tell me what I'm missing???

I mean, just imagine how many African babies Madonna could buy with $140million. It's crazy.

[ummmm]

It'd be a nice picture if it cost a tenner!

Ridiculous

Absolutely

[China Doll]

Sorry Sp1814... while I quite like abstract and surrealism I don't get this at all.... I think my 3 year old godsons mother has a fair few of these pinned to her fridge tho, I never realised he was so talented... must get them on to ebay quick smart!

That said... just because I don't get it doesn't mean it's tack, I could just be showing my ignorance. I think the ideas behind pitcures like this is to with interpretation and meaning.... I just don't see either.

You'll notice this answer was no help.

[Hammer Head]

You live in Islington. That explains an awful lot.

[sp1814]

Seriously...I really want to know whether I just don't see what the art establishment sees.

Is it really me?

Am I just ignorant?

My definition of great art is "something created by man/woman which I could not reproduce myself...something that moves me emotionally".

...and there have been several Friday nights where I've got home to leave something that looks like that Jackson Pollock painting all over the back of our toilet cistern...and as far as I can recall, no-one from the Tate Modern has contacted me with a view to exhibiting my 'output'.

I'm beginning to think that I just 'don't get it'.

[Hammer Head]

So-called art works on the same priciple as the Emperors new clothes. Some people daren't say they think a picture is rubbish, even if they do think it is, so as not to look like an 'uncultured Philistine' and fit in with the crowd.

sp1814 you fit this bill perfectly as you have admitted. Next time you are with your mates and you think something is pretentious rubbish, tell them so. They will think more of you for being honest. If they don't then it could be time for new mates.

[Hammer Head]

To answer your question, art is a very subjective thing. While many people may think this is a good picture it is not exactly an old master which few of us could copy. This effort however, could be reproduced by any naughty four-year old with a few tins of paint.

[sp1814]

Hammer Head

Y'see - this is what I mean...my favourite artist is Magritte. Never in a month of Sundays could I possibly reproduce his works, but when I see them (I went to an exhibition a few years back at the National), I am dumbstruck.

I've always felt that modern art (I'm thinking of you Miss Emin and Mr Hirst) is a lot of 'emporers new clothes...but a little part of me thinks...."Well, perhaps you're just thick and you don't understand what's in front of you".

This Jackson Pollock thing really, really bothers me because I don't get it.

[admarlow]

I suppose there is what something is worth and the
Value.

[warpig1]

Sorry if this sounds cr@p, but I posted a similar question in a&l, which is beside the point, personally this is sh!t, I could have done this, is it art? Not in my opinion. Would pay a quid for it, think I could do better myself! But then again I amm n art critic.

[warpig1]

Sorry - 'am not an art critic'

[warpig1]

Well said fender, totally agree.

[kev100]

It's odd isn't it that the three worst paintings of all time are the most expensive.

Van Gogh's sunflowers which the average six year old could do, $54 million

Picassos boy with pipe, the average six year old would have a better sense of perspective. $104 million

And the above piece of tripe which could easily have been daubed on canvas by a chimpanzee $140 million

[admarlow]

The thing is with these painting though, is that although a 6 year old could do them, they didn't and so when they were produced at the time they were groundbreaking and thus influenced future works. So really the value is not in the workmanship but the idea and intention.

[sp1814]

admarlow...I see where you're going with this...but to clarify - is it more to do with 'who' than 'what'?

No...I've got it!

If I put my Nike trainers into an auction, they'd get no money, but if you put the original Judy Garland red slippers from 'The Wizard Of Oz' into an auction, they'd fetch a fortune...not because of their intrinsic value, but the associated value that they have because of what they represent.

Okay...I've got it now.

Modern art is rubbish, but it's rubbish that gains value because my Islington mates are sheep.

Phew.

Glad I've got that sorted.

[Hammer Head]

Have you ever thought about moving to a less pretentious part of the country or mixing with normal people who aren't taken in by this rubbish.

[-Zorro-]

He would have had to pay ME "140m to take it off his hands..absolute sh!te Jackson Pillock more like

[admarlow]

sp - you analagy (sp?) is a good one, and the same phemomanan can be seen in many of the arts, for instance maybe (IMHO) the Sex Pistols fall into this catogry.

[Hammer Head]

Admarlow.

Your analogy not 'you analagy.'

Phenomenon not 'phemomanan'.

Category not 'catogry'.

[admarlow]

1/10