£113M Picasso sold today

This was the mistress in real terms

picasso-maya.jpg
 

Rose65 said:
Unbelievable, what a load of rubbish. Well that's my view for what it's all worth. I see nothing in it that is any good, it looks childish and I don't understand how it could be worth such a massive sum. I cannot imagine having that kind of money - or parting with it for that.

Of course others may disagree, if so please explain what makes that painting worth it. I would love to be enlightened.
Click to expand...
The buyer. A painting is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it.

What makes Picasso's work valuable to a buyer is that it flies in the face of traditional painting styles and teachings. Same with van Gogh's paintings about half a century earlier. Unfortunately, everybody thought van Gogh's paintings were rubbish until after he was long gone.

I am not a fan of Piccaso's work, so, for me, it's worthless. It does have some value in that it broadened people's view about what art is. But Picasso wasn't the first to do that. I guess you could say he popularized it; he painted on everything from canvases to dinnerware to cheap trinkets.
 

Last edited:
When a private person purchases a piece of art for an outrageous amount, at least it is the Artist
who creates it.

It is their Creation. A blank slate. Empty till they put their soul onto it.

When a mass-produced object like a guitar is sold for millions, one anyone could buy at the time,
and is now famous just because a certain artist used it, this seems strange to me.

I'm sure the poor could use the money paid, but there will always be private buyers who want things
and they either donate it to a museum or put it in their basement.
 
Feelslikefar said:
When a private person purchases a piece of art for an outrageous amount, at least it is the Artist
who creates it.

It is their Creation. A blank slate. Empty till they put their soul onto it.

When a mass-produced object like a guitar is sold for millions, one anyone could buy at the time,
and is now famous just because a certain artist used it, this seems strange to me.

I'm sure the poor could use the money paid, but there will always be private buyers who want things
and they either donate it to a museum or put it in their basement.
Click to expand...

Wealth distribution doesn't work this way. The idea that if this amount wasn't paid, the cash would have helped the needy, is fantasy. Instead, it would have gone on another investment. These people aren't paying that because they like the picture, they just know it will increase in value.
 
VaughanJB said:
Wealth distribution doesn't work this way. The idea that if this amount wasn't paid, the cash would have helped the needy, is fantasy. Instead, it would have gone on another investment. These people aren't paying that because they like the picture, they just know it will increase in value.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling famous works of art will totally lose any value whatsoever in the not-too-distant future. I don't think paintings are a wise investment right now no matter who the artist was.

I doubt the next couple generations will have any reverence at all for Picasso, Rembrandt, Monet, da Vinci...none of the so-called masters.
 
Rose65 said:
Lol! If that is what his young mistress looked like I really wonder! Not very flattering.

I know I am a heathen but I just cannot imagine such sums of money spent on such a thing. So much good could have been done for mankind instead of it must be spent.
Click to expand...
Can say that about alot of things. There are sports fans that would pay similar amounts for their favorite player, or $50 for a 2 hour parking spot or ticket that would be a weeks worth a food for some. Si-fi nuts pay similar amounts to go an event dressed like a cartoon or movie character.

Eh, hopefully those events or these art auctions employ and pay enough to spread it out on the local economy.
 
Murrmurr said:
I have a feeling famous works of art will totally lose any value whatsoever in the not-too-distant future. I don't think paintings are a wise investment right now no matter who the artist was.

I doubt the next couple generations will have any reverence at all for Picasso, Rembrandt, Monet, da Vinci...none of the so-called masters.
Click to expand...

Hm, we can't know. But if I were to guess, I'd say they'll grow exponentially in value. There's a lot of fake in the world, but this isn't it. A lot of what is valued today will become worthless (think NFT's). These are the things that will grow.

Only time can tell.
 
VaughanJB said:
Hm, we can't know. But if I were to guess, I'd say they'll grow exponentially in value. There's a lot of fake in the world, but this isn't it. A lot of what is valued today will become worthless (think NFT's). These are the things that will grow.

Only time can tell.
Click to expand...
If our schools still taught art history and, by extension, the value of creativity and passion expressed through art (non-tech), I might agree with you. I just don't think enough people will care about that 40-50 years from now. A bunch of old paintings just won't be relevant in any way, on any level.

Not that they couldn't make a comeback at some point, but probably far too late for this guy to make good on his 113M-pound investment.
 
Murrmurr said:
If our schools still taught art history and, by extension, the value of creativity and passion expressed through art (non-tech), I might agree with you. I just don't think enough people will care about that 40-50 years from now. A bunch of old paintings just won't be relevant in any way, on any level.

Not that they couldn't make a comeback at some point, but probably far too late for this guy to make good on his 113M-pound investment.
Click to expand...

The market for a 113m painting has never been taught in school, nor should it. Time will tell, and the answer won't be known until you and I are long gone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top