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.
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.
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?
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.
No! I'd rather have an Andrew Wyeth or a Winslow Homer. Or maybe a Picasso from his Blue Period.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 .
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.
I beleive 'Blue Poles' is currently valued at $80 million
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
by Susie Lehto20 months ago
Estimated worth: $91,500,00091 and a 1/2 million dollars? How much can HubPages earn in a year? $19,493,280 / yearOkey, you might be wondering where on cyber-space I got these figures. (...
by Steven Escareno6 years ago
Apparently, even if the LA Lakers do win the nba title this year, according to espn, the lakers are going to still ask phil to take a considerable pay cut to around like 5 million versus his current salary of 12...
by ns12095 years ago
If a company like Google wanted to buy Hubpages, how much money would they have to pay for a fantastic site like this? I just wondered but I would expect it would in the millions of dollars/pounds but I could see why...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.