No quibble with almost any of those except Pollock and Warhol and that dreadful Rothko. I'd die to own a Klimt, a Rubens, da Vinci, Titian, Cezanne, Van Gogh, but since I can't, I partially own by contributing to my local museums and arts scene. Beholding a Klimt is not as nice as owning one, I guess, but still brings such great pleasure. There was a recent exhibit at The Kimball in F. Worth, TX, a collection of Bernini (of Trevi Fountain fame)terracotta sketches. I am not much into the cult of personality, yet was very moved by the master's thumb prints on the clay.
Originally posted by scacchipazzo There was a recent exhibit at The Kimball in F. Worth, TX, a collection of Bernini (of Trevi Fountain fame)terracotta sketches. I am not much into the cult of personality, yet was very moved by the master's thumb prints on the clay.
Well - you're fortunate to have that superb collection in Fort Worth! The Kimball quite often lends its holdings to exhibitions here in London, and they often turn out to be among the best pictures.
Indeed the Kimball is world class and we are quite fortunate. Dallas' wealthy are not nearly as generous. F. Worth also has the Amon Carter, Sid Richardson and Museum of Modern Art. Amon Carter collects Americana such as Remington and Russel, western art exponents of the highest order. The Kimball has a wonderful teenage Michelangelo I marvel at, the "Torment of St. Anthony" earliest extant painting by the master! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Torment_of_Saint_Anthony_%28Michelangelo%29
Priceless. I have no idea how much it is insured for, but suspect it is in great measure a reason behind Louvre's exorbitant admission price. I have been told the piece is insured for half a billion $. Is it worth that much? I have not been able to verify the actual cost for insuring it, but since it is one of a kind it would be worth every penny. According to wiki: "The world's most famous paintings, especially old master works done before 1800, are generally owned or held at museums, for viewing for patrons. The museums very rarely sell them, and as such, they are quite literally priceless. Guinness World Records lists the Mona Lisa as having the highest insurance value for a painting in history. It was assessed at US$100 million on December 14, 1962, before the painting toured the United States for several months. However, the Louvre chose to spend the money that would have been spent on the insurance premium on security instead. Taking inflation into account, the 1962 value would be around US$759 million today."
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby [b]"The Ten Most Expensive Paintings Ever Sold"
http://www.theartwolf.com/10_expensive.htm
"A detailed and frequently updated list of the most
expensive paintings ever sold." (G. Fernandez)[/b]
I think the cop in the movie The Thomas Crown Affair had it right regarding expensive art: "A few swirls of paint, that are only important to a few very silly rich people."
Originally posted by bill718 I think the cop in the movie The Thomas Crown Affair had it right regarding expensive art: "A few swirls of paint, that are only important to a few very silly rich people."
Not sillier than tagging a whole group as purchasers of mere swirls of paint. In some individual instances such is true, but in others we are talking about unique works of art. Paintings might not have much intrinsic value until one explores the special skills, the circumstances surrounding the art work and the overall pleasure it brings. Without the "silly" rich people we would have no museums and would be unable to enjoy these great works of art. Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel is testament of the greatness and pricelessness of art. Anyone calling that mere swirls of paint would be a mere ninny!
Originally posted by scacchipazzo Not sillier than tagging a whole group as purchasers of mere swirls of paint. In some individual instances such is true, but in others we are talking about unique works of art. Paintings might not have much intrinsic value until one explores the special skills, the circumstances surrounding the art work and the overall pleasure it brings. Without the "s ess and pricelessness of art. Anyone calling that mere swirls of paint would be a mere ninny!
Well...I guess I'm a ninny then. I can get online and see
almost anything that was ever painted by the (so called)
masters, so why do I need to pay $$$ to visit a museum
at all?? Oh...by the way, what makes them "priceless"??
I wouldn't give you more than $20.00 for any of them.
Originally posted by bill718 Well...I guess I'm a ninny then. I can get online and see
almost anything that was ever painted by the (so called)
masters, so why do I need to pay $$$ to visit a museum
at all?? Oh...by the way, what makes them "priceless"??
I wouldn't give you more than $20.00 for any of them.
I am sorry, and mean no offense, but indeed if you think a pixelated version of a master's work is the same as seeing it in person I need say no more. I rest my case. Museums don't operate for free and indeed it is your privilege to not go in the first place, but the reasons you state are surreal! Next you'll tell me recorded music is as good as a live concert? Lastly, why bother seeing masterworks at all if they are worthless?
Originally posted by scacchipazzo I am sorry, and mean no offense, but indeed if you think a pixelated version of a master's work is the same as seeing it in person I need say no more. I rest my case. Museums don't operate for free and indeed it is your privilege to not go in the first place, but the reasons you state are surreal! Next you'll tell me recorded music is as good as a live concert? Lastly, why bother seeing masterworks at all if they are worthless?
Well...I guess I just don't have a fine and sensitive appreciation for art that many people do. My idea of fine art is the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated!😀
Originally posted by bill718 Well...I guess I just don't have a fine and sensitive appreciation for art that many people do. My idea of fine art is the swimsuit edition of Sports Illustrated!😀
Exposure increases appreciation. No one need be an art expert to appreciate the immense talent of a Boticelli, Michelangelo, Rafael, et al. Artful as the female form may appear in Sports Illustrated, the very idea is ancient. Boticelli's "Birth of Venus" is far sexier than any SI spread. Take a look at Pierre Auguste Cot's "The Storm". Doesn't get much sexier than that, but in an elegant form. The incredible skill of Cot in painting diaphanous fabric is apparent even in a digital image.
https://www.google.com/search?q=pierre+auguste+cot+the+storm&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ALvSUZyhJYjm8QSpm4CwDw&ved=0CE0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=681
Originally posted by scacchipazzo Exposure increases appreciation. No one need be an art expert to appreciate the immense talent of a Boticelli, Michelangelo, Rafael, et al. Artful as the female form may appear in Sports Illustrated, the very idea is ancient. Boticelli's "Birth of Venus" is far sexier than any SI spread. Take a look at Pierre Auguste Cot's "The Storm". Doesn't get much ...[text shortened]... m&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ALvSUZyhJYjm8QSpm4CwDw&ved=0CE0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=681
I respectfully disagree. Kate Upton is a lot hotter than anything Boticelli ever painted. (And yes...I have looked at many of his paintings.)
I am not making a comparison of who's hotter, but of who's sexier and I find anything in a Botticelli far more attractive/sexier than silicone enhanced SI models. The lady in Botticelli's Birth of Venus is exquisite. Upton, while quite pretty is anything but unique nor exquisite.
30 May '13 22:45
YouTube
"The Ten Most Expensive Paintings Ever Sold"
Back to Top