‘The Scream’ sets record with $120m sale

Edvard Munch's oil painting "The Scream" broke all time sale price records yesterday by selling for almost $120 million.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/493a5aae-94b5-11e1-8e90-00144feab49a.html

I guess there are 4 copies of this one altogether, but the others all reside in museums.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are some people who are foolish enough to throw away their money on things like this to keep it locked away somewhere where only they can view it. Very sad people that must acquire things like this instead of letting a museum have it to show so everyone could enjoy it. I wouldn't own someone else's artwork that costs enough to feed a small nation but then again I'm not much into needing to have stuff to prove anything. It is nice to know that there are copies for others to see which probably no one could tell the difference anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I bought it.
I thought I was bidding $120.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaargghhhh!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This constant upward sale price trend in classic art pieces was noticed by someone at Time Magazine way back in the 1970's. They penned an article they called "The Death Throws of Expressionism" in which they examined in great detail the art investment business.

Drawing from that article (as I recall it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) they divided art investors into "new money" investors and "old money" investors. While new money investors pretty much bought anything that caught their fancy, old money investors were strategic in their art purchases. Several interviews underscored the difference between the 2 sets thinking and motivation.

New money folks were younger, were spending disposable income, were uneducated in the arts, were unconcerned (to a great extent) about the investment potential of their purchases and tended to buy art on the spur of the moment or because they knew other people who had bought from a particular artist (trendy purchase).

Old money investors were older chronologically, educated in art and art history, thought long and hard before buying an art piece and always considered the investment potential before purchasing. They also bought what they liked, but restricted that to "old masters". Why? They were asked.

The response was that recent "art" by "up and coming artists" was of very dubious investment value. Many young artists work in nontraditional media (urine, feces, dead animals, garbage, meat) or in nontraditional ways. Examples are such as a young female NY city artist whose 'art' was going in for repeated surgeries to alter various aspects of her body to match images of classic beauty from old master's paintings (like the Mona Lisa by Da Vinci and the Birth of Venus by Botticelli). She would then take the excised tissues and fat (several 'tummy tucks'), place samples in plastic boxes and sell them as her 'art'. ('new money' buyers bought it)

Another example is a painting by Joseph Albers that was a huge raw cotton canvas that he tilted and poured gallons of paint onto from each side such that there were several streams of coloured paint running across the canvas. MOMA purchased that piece in the 1960's for $38,000 US, by 1990 it had dry rotted right off the wall, was dead and gone.

The trend was tracked back to the Expressionists, though I place its beginning at Marcel Duchamp's entry of a very used Russian Army barracks urinal in a major European exhibition of contemporary art in the early 1900's thus founding the Dadaist movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

Dada means "anti - art" and has evolved into the contemporary "Conceptualist" movement (which I do not consider to be "art" either). While conceptualists embrace the 'anti - art' message of Dada, they initially included a philosophic goal of "separating art from money" to somehow "purify" it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

shrug: I never did quite understand that goal) After a period of not making "art" and not making "money" at that, they began to look for ways to get money for 'not making' art.

The bottom line is that they have succeeded in scaring many 'old money' investors right out of the contemporary art market. The Old Masters are all dead and gone. Old master's art then constitutes a limited number of art pieces, many of known bottom value (the previous sale price). Limited number of pieces = limited supply. Combine that with a continued 'old money' investor demand for proven investment grade art and the stage is set for the continued escalation of old masters art auction prices. Limited supply + continued demand = constantly escalating prices for classic traditional artworks.

 

I've been under the impression that the wealthy buy real estate , for the most part, to hedge their bets, not paintings for not many people think that a painting is worth much except to another buyer of them.

Any painting that was originally done was meant to be seen by anyone with any income. It was not painted just for its value to rise and be kept away from the general public by those who believe they are caretakers of some sort. If you'd ask any painter, they will express to you exactly what I say and are animate that anyone can see their work not just the wealthy.

Lowest GDP per capita

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p6yWCQ&usg=AFQjCNE8VY4-tVbVoDgmaFhlJEtNtfDD6g

 

Is the objective of new art to make one vomit?

Is one then part of the work or still an observer?

 

just a few observations:

1. Because of general inflation, there will be always new and newer records of higher prices.
2. I recall the Japanese buying Sunflowers for 80 million in the 80s, that was some record back then. A few years later they sold it with a loss....

By the way the OP is incorrect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

"This is a list of the highest known prices paid for paintings. The earliest sale on the list (Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers by Vincent van Gogh) is from 1987, and more than tripled the previous record price, set only two years before, introducing a new era in top picture prices. The sale was also significant in that for the first time a "modern" painting (in this case from 1888) became the record holder, as opposed to the old master paintings which had always previously held it. Since that time sales of the most valuable paintings have usually been made at auctions, though that had by no means always been the case before, and the list below still shows some "private sales", including the four most expensive. The current record price was paid for The Card Players by Paul Cézanne, which was sold for more than $250 million in 2011.

 

Yes, but most collectors buy it and then let a museum display it or loan it out to museums occasionally.

 

D-d-d-damn!

I don't have any general condemnation of art auctions, nor high prices for masterworks, to offer at this time.

However, I am curious who bought it, because there are some other considerations I inject into this kind of spending.

Much as I wonder about certain American lobbies and political action groups spending hundreds of millions of dollars on elections: I wonder how many jobs that sum could fund.

But that's a larger political issue; for now, I'm just impressed by the number: $119m total expenditure.

D-d-d-damn!

 

OK Syzy, I'll see your Wiki, admit that the major media line is inaccurate, raise you 4 of a kind cheap Internet search results and call.


http://www.chiff.com/a/painting-top-ten.htm

http://www.juggle.com/highest-priced-paintings

http://www.theartwolf.com/10_expensive.htm

http://communityoflights.com/art/the-20-most-expensive-paintings-in-the-world

...and I think the point goes to Frag on this one too, the money doesn't stay put, it gets spread around.

 

Surely you aren't denying that it is a great work?
Hopefully it has been bought by a Museum and not an Oligarch with artistic aspirations. Then the ridiculous price tag can be forgotten, and people can appreciate the art itself.

 

I really don't care for the issue that much. As I said, it will be overtaken soon enough, because of general inflation...

Now the buyer might have bought it as an investment. The idea of art as an investment isn't so bad as long as you don't buy at the high of the market, like the roaring 90s or 2005-2008. In those times everything is overvalued and you pay way more than it is necessary...

 

I completely agree with you on that point. I also think that eventually many contemporary artists work will be perceived as worthy investments as well, but it is going to take a bit of time to clear up exactly who and what. My personal opinion is that all of these items are vastly overvalued at present.

We indeed live in "interesting times".

 

Well, with art and other not necessary items value is a tricky thing. Basicly it boils down to the bigger idiot principle, everybody hopes that there will be a bigger idiot, who will buy it at a higher price. Short of a stock where the company doesn't really make money, but the stockprice is still going through the roof. Unfortunatelly, the music has to stop at one point.

Now with art, it is the uniqueness of the object that gives its value. Can it be valued objectively? No. How much it is worth? As much as one is willing to pay for it.

 

I am denying it's a great work. And don't call me 'Shirley'.

 

The funny part is that you could buy a poster of this for let's say $20-40 if one loves the painting so much.
Even if you want a real painting, any starving painter/art student could make you a pretty decent copy for $1-2000, just for aesthetical pleasure. I always thought if I were a millionaire I would still only buy copies, just to make a point. If I want an investment, I would buy gold or real estate...

 

It can be both. You should see my golden eagle coin collection under my bed and how much it is up since I got them...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(since 2009, gold prices doubled)

Anyhow, with art, it is really the bigger idiot principle. With gold at least you have history on your side, over the centuries its price has increased steadily...

What if one day people won't give a shit about owning a real original painting?? That's going to be the end of snobery...