Pastel Breaks Art Auction Record

[Talley]

The version of Munch's The Scream that sold for a record price of $119.9 million yesterday at Sotheby's was a pastel. That price makes is the most expensive work of art ever sold at auction.

Here's the article in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/ar...n.html?_r=1&hp

[chuas2]

That's just crazy!! I thought when Van Gogh's Irises sold for fifty two million, that was the highest we'd ever see. Incredible! Can't wait until mine fetch that price!
lol!

[Colorix]

My thought strays to those gallerists who say they don't want "work on paper", or "behind glass"... I'm pretty sure they just would have luuuuuved to have sold those two works...

Moi? Cynical? Naaah....

[lumiere33]

where's the screamning smiley ?

:

[angie_v]

Oh wow! Thanks for sharing the article, very interesting

[DFGray]

I gotta raise my prices!

[Davkin]

Frankly this kind of thing makes me shake my head. I just don't get it. I think there is plenty of art being made by living artists that is better than many of these works by dead artists. If these people were real art lovers they'd support living artists. I believe there are only two reasons old art gets these ridiculous prices. One, vanity. Two, asset protection.

David

[Colorix]

[SherryC]

Brilliant Charlie

Originally Posted by Colorix

[adventureartist]

"Cough...sputter" !!!! Charlie I almost choked on my tea you made me laugh so hard.....
Really all us pastelists should be saying NEENER NEENER NEENER!!! HA!!
Next time someone pooh poohs our "can't sell under glass" works....
And yes of course it's ridiculous selling for that amount. I am in agreement with Davids' "live artist statement".

[robertsloan2]

ROFL Charlie, love it!

That's incredible. Maybe that'll make some collectors notice we're doing a respectable medium and stop quibbling over the cost of glass in the frame!

Though I can understand if you're a billionaire putting money into an artwork that belongs in a museum, then donating it to a museum with your name under it as donor. That's a way to get some recognition long after you're gone.

[Colorix]

At least the seller must be laughing all the way to the bank...! :-) This is one of four Screams, the only one not in a museum, and it has been hanging for a very long time on the wall next to a portrait by Munch of the seller's mother. (Though I don't like the Scream, I'm glad it has been on a wall, and not in a vault.) The seller wants to build a cultural art-center of some sort for the money. That's nice.

(Btw, guys, Munch isn't pronounced as eating, it is more like "monk".)

I found The Laugh in a magazine, probably in the early 90s or so, been saving it digitally since my first computer. Just love it, irreverence at its funny best!

Edit: Actually, I'm serious, we should use that sale in our marketing. It is great for us. Look at what a bit of dust on a board (it is not on paper) can fetch! And contrary to rotting sharks, it still looks pristine.

[SSB]

Originally Posted by Davkin

Frankly this kind of thing makes me shake my head. I just don't get it. I think there is plenty of art being made by living artists that is better than many of these works by dead artists. If these people were real art lovers they'd support living artists. I believe there are only two reasons old art gets these ridiculous prices. One, vanity. Two, asset protection.

David

To top off the irony, many of the artists' work was and is considered worthless until some monied man as opposed to art lover deems it "worthy".

Artists: remember who has the money...

Makes me want to keep everything at home.