Do you think Jackson Pollock's number 5 is worth $140 million?

1. 66

   Ian Hudsonposted 13 years ago

   Pollock currently has the title for the most expensive painting ever sold. Art is worth what the buyer is willing to pay. I personally like pollock's work, would I buy one of his pieces?
   The answer to that is yes.
   Would I pay $140 million?
   I'll never have that kind of money, but if money was no object, would I pay that much for a painting?
   More than likely this would be no.
   I don't think that pollock's work is the greatest in the world, other artists like picasso or Kandinsky have more interesting pieces as far as I am concerned and maybe their work should be more expensive.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      clpartinposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I don't believe you can put a price on art nor do I believe any piece is greater than the other.  While I won't pretend that I don't prefer certain pieces or artists to another, I believe their aesthetic value is the same.
      While I would never be able to spend that amount of money on a piece, I do believe it's a fair price.  These days the price depends on who the artist was, the time it was painted and under what circumstances it came to be in.
      In the end, with the risk of sounding cliche, all art, in my opinion, is priceless.  However, a price must be placed on a piece as it has always been.  What the price is reflects peoples opinions of it, but I don't believe there will ever be a price too high no matter who created it.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Ian Hudsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         There's hope for my work then. haha.
         People have their own taste in art, what some may think is rubbish, others could love. Once a meaning of a painting is revealed or if you start to understand what the artist was trying to achieve in the first place, you can gaze upon their art in a different light. Art is often created for a reason, like a state of mind, in Van Gogh's case or a much more direct approach like the members of Dada, making statements against World War 1 and later Hitler.
         I'm not sure if Pollock's painting's have meaning, but I do know that his flicks and strokes were done in a precise fashion, he didn't simply throw the paint on, he was a calculated artist.
         In my opinion, you can like a piece of art that you previously disliked, after the meaning is known. 
         Whether all art is equal, I'm not sure, I also wouldn't want to be the one to judge that. If a piece of art was created in a hour on a small scale, is this worth the same as a huge scale piece, what took a couple of years to finish?

         replyreport
         1. 66

            Ian Hudsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I have just looked at your Hubpage. I feel a bit of a clown now, after my art history comment, as your knowledge on the subject will be far greater than mine. haha.

            replyreport
   2. 85

      Azure11posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I am an art lover and artist but I would only pay $140m for a painting if I believed that it was a good investment and I would get a reasonable return on my money (which in theory I guess the buyer should) but i would not buy it for that price just because I liked it.
      
      Having said that, if I had so much money that I didn't actually know what to do with it then maybe I would, just for the heck of it! It's difficult to say until you are in that situation.

      replyreport
2. 92

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   No! I'd rather have an Andrew Wyeth or a Winslow Homer. Or maybe a Picasso from his Blue Period.

   replyreport
3. 63

   Manna in the wildposted 13 years ago

   Somehow - multi million dollar transactions for a single painting displays some of what is bad and twisted in our society. While I am not really a socialist, this amount of money for one item is out of proportion with common sense when there are so many other better uses for such a large sum. If half always went to a cause like cancer research or to prevent child abuse and treat homelessness, then it would be acceptable.

   replyreport
4. 72

   tonymac04posted 13 years ago

   I like Jackson Pollock but no piece of art is worth that amount of money. For someone to pay that for a painting is just a sad refelction of the way money makes whores of us all.

   replyreport
5. 0

   ryankettposted 13 years ago

   What makes it even more twisted is the fact that the buyer is believed to be Mexican.
   
   The same man has been buying up loads of fine art and spent $55m on a Manhattan apartment.
   
   Surely he should be building up businesses and employment in Mexico for the good of their society, instead of further lining the pockets of American billionaires?

   replyreport
6. 61

   bojanglesk8posted 13 years ago

   No.

   replyreport
7. 66

   Ian Hudsonposted 13 years ago

   I wonder what Pollock sold it for in the first place?
   People with plenty of money just want status symbols. Unfortunately most artists never make much money and when their art does sell for millions they are usually long gone.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      wychicposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What would he sell it for in the first place? Heck, if somebody offered me $140 million for something I created, I'd sell it in a heartbeat. I can use the money a lot more than I can use something that hangs on the wall.
      
      Or are you meaning how much he sold it for in the first place? I just realized there could be a couple of different interpretations there .

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Ian Hudsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I meant in the first place.

         replyreport
8. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Okay, I've read this thread and agree with many people. I mean, if this thing/art isn't one of the absolute best in the world, then there is no common sense behind the purchase at the value which it was bought.
   
   And, I also agree that this is a precise example of the excessive spending, when a good portion of that money could have been spent more wisely, such as poverty solutions, shelters, missions for homeless, even using it to start something meaningful and help people.
   
   Instead, we get to see how the educated elite get to squander so much on a whim.
   
   It's a pathetic and sad view. Not surprising though.

   replyreport
9. 76

   barryrutherfordposted 13 years ago

   I beleive 'Blue Poles' is currently valued at $80 million

   replyreport
10. 85

    camloposted 13 years ago

    I'm a huge fan of abstract expressionism, and particularly admire the work of Jackson Pollock.
    Seeing this thread, I imagined what it might be like to have Pollock's Number 5 actually hanging on my wall at home ...
    Yes, I would pay the $140,000,000.
    Of course, it will never happen.

    replyreport
11. 0

    Edliraposted 13 years ago

    When it comes to art, tastes decide. I wouldn't. With all due respect to his work, that doesn't speak to me. As for the price, wayyyyyyyyyy too much, for any piece of art.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       June McEwanposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Don't have the cash.

       replyreport
12. 60

    recommend1posted 13 years ago

    140 million is a snip for something that will appreciate faster than almost any other investment. And the buyer will be worth so much more because he owns it, and he can still keep it.  How do you think the rich get richer, they get to eat their cake and keep it.  Next - guess where that money comes from, the increase in value I mean. for instance - When a collected art work doubles in value, as they do, from 50 to 100 million where do you think that extra 50 million comes from ?

    replyreport
13. 59

    spookyfoxposted 13 years ago

    Compared to any everyday stuff to us normal people, it's too much. Compared to the price a football (soccer) player is payed in Europe... too little.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Ian Hudsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       I wish I had tried a little harder at football,  £ 200,000 a week would be nice.
       What's with the dodgy A, before the pound sign?

       replyreport
14. 67

    Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

    No.  I actually think his piece is a load of carp.  But if I had it to sell, I'd sell it for $140 million.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       The quality of the work is beyond dipute - $140 million is indisputable proof of this.  If your opinion is otherwise it is your opinion that should be queried.  The value of art works is nothing to do with whether one likes it or not - it is in the visual text and its contribution to the pool of general knowledge or furthering understanding.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          Flightkeeperposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          
          
          Oh please, just because some idiot bought something for $140 million doesn't necessarily mean it's worth that.  It just means some idiot forked over $140 million for a picture.

          replyreport