• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gauguin painting breaks sale record at nearly $300m

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kraftwerk

Member
Paul_Gauguin_138.jpg


A painting of two Tahitian girls by the French artist Paul Gauguin has been sold for $300m (£197m), making it the most expensive work of art ever sold.

Nafea Faa Ipoipo, or When Will You Marry?, was painted in 1892 and had been owned by a Swiss collector.

Unconfirmed reports suggest it was sold to a museum in Qatar.

The small oil-rich state paid the previous highest price for a painting, a work by Paul Cezanne which sold for a reported £158m.

Before its sale, the Gauguin artwork had been owned by Rudolf Staechelin, a collector from Basel.

For decades it had been on loan to the Kunstmuseum Basel but Mr Staechelin decided to sell the painting after a disagreement with the museum, US media report.

Source

inb4 "I could draw that"

Here is a list of the other most-expensive art;


Card_Players-Paul_Cezanne.jpg

Paul Cezanne - The Card Players £158m - Before the Gauguin sale, this was believed to be the most money paid for a painting. Also purchased by Qataris, it fetched a reported £158m in 2011.

francis-bacons-1969-masterpiece-three-studies-lucian-freud-photo-http-www-christies-com.jpg

Francis Bacon - Three Studies of Lucian Freud £89m- The triptych is considered one of Bacon's greatest masterpieces. It sold after six minutes of fierce bidding in November 2013, according to auction house Christie's.

the-scream.jpg

The Scream by Edvard Munch
The Scream was sold in May 2012
Edvard Munch - The Scream £74m - Perhaps one of the world's most famous images, The Scream went on sale in May 2012, sparking a 12-minute bidding war. By the end, the privately-owned pastel, one of four in a series by the Norwegian, had been sold for £74m.

640px-Gustav_Klimt_046.jpg

Gustav Klimt - Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer £73m - According to The New York Times, the Neue Galerie paid £73m for the oil painting in a private sale in 2006. It had been looted by the Nazis during World War Two, before being returned to Ms Bloch-Bauer's heir in 2006.

number-5.jpg

Jackson Pollock - No. 5 £73m - Pollock's famous drip-and-pour painting was sold for a then record £73m, also in 2006, according to The New York Times. Reports said US media magnate David Geffen sold the 4ft by 8ft work to Mexican financier David Martinez.

[
Nude_Green_Leaves_and_Bust_by_Picasso.jpg

Pablo Picasso - Nude, Green Leaves, and Bust £65.5m - Considered amongst Picasso's greatest post-war paintings, it sold at auction in New York in 2010 for £65.5m.
 

Mr Nash

square pies = communism
Isn't there discussion of a bubble forming in the world of fine art? Some well-heeled folks looking for unconventional places to park their money as more traditional investment vehicles become increasingly risky propositions given the state of the global economy?
 

Revoh

Member
My mind is full of fuck. I'll never understand how some people can pay for a piece of shit like that, no offense. I don't get it
 
The Pollock painting is about as pretentious as you can get.

Not really, Pollock's is very straight forward. You have to understand that the money these things are sold for is really no indication of what their artistry is worth. Stuff sold at these prices are very often monetary investments, sometimes an eccentric purchase by those who can afford it, and little more.


You have to admit, it's pretty darn good.
 
I hate art threads on GAF.

Its always the same sets of responses.

I can understand the discussion and morality behind these mega money art purchases, but the tired comments about abstract art reek of ignorance. It's okay to dislike art, even to dislike entire genres. There are reasons why abstract artists like Rothko and pollock are as valuable as they are though; they were some of the first to ever do anything like that. On top of that their art is visually stirring. They often don't resonate in photos.

It's not just random lines or blocks of color, there is depth and posing. If it were as talentless as some people think there would be an awful lot more uber famous abstractionists/modernists.

Sorry for the rant.

ps: I think gauguin is overrated lol.
 

Ventara

Member
I could draw that.

That's a lie, but I really don't get why some of these paintings are so valuable. Especially that blue painting. Like, wtf? I guess when money isn't an issue, price doesn't really matter, but some of these paintings just seem ugly to me.
 
I hate art threads on GAF.

Its always the same sets of responses.

I can understand the discussion and morality behind these mega money art purchases, but the tired comments about abstract art reek of ignorance. It's okay to dislike art, even to dislike entire genres. There are reasons why abstract artists like Rothko and pollock are as valuable as they are though; they were some of the first to ever do anything like that. On top of that their art is visually stirring. They often don't resonate in photos.

It's not just random lines or blocks of color, there is depth and posing. If it were as talentless as some people think there would be an awful lot more uber famous abstractionists/modernists.

Sorry for the rant.

ps: I think gauguin is overrated lol.

You're right. Blue Pong is worth $43.8 million.
 
That's not modern though.

I know. I was stating that I don't get modern art, while commenting on a piece of art that wasn't even modern art. The tension between what's presented to you and the inherent paradoxical intent is what really brings the post to a higher state of transcendent beauty.

I find your post menacing/playful because of the way the optical suggestions of the negative space endangers the devious simplicity of the eloquence of these pieces.
 

Ah, I was off by 50 plus million.

Working at a place where artifacts were auctioned off a Sotheby's gave me a new perspective on why these pieces go for so much. Seems it's more about what someone is willing to pay. We took a loss of about 10,000 on a 75,000 incense burner cos the peeps that were bidding on it were low balling.

Also, tripped me out when a curator from a museum came by with a 15th century bowl and one of the appraisers was like "it's shame that I have to tell her it's 17th century counterfeit".
 
I know. I was stating that I don't get modern art, while commenting on a piece of art that wasn't even modern art. The tension between what's presented to you and the inherent paradoxical intent is what really brings the post to a higher state of transcendent beauty.

I find your post menacing/playful because of the way the optical suggestions of the negative space endangers the devious simplicity of the eloquence of these pieces.

lol jokes on you abstract expressionism is actually modern lol

though i really do appreciate the inherent bravado and emotionally driven truth behind your satire
 

Stet

Banned
I always love it when people judge the merits of a piece of art based on a 500 pixel image they saw on their computer screen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom