Uncategorized

Off Topic, I Know

Do you think it’s a comment on the current economic/political/climate-related moment that a version of Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” just set a new record for art at auction, selling for $120 million?

Personally, if I were going to spend $120 million on something, I’d want it to be a Velasquez.

Posted by on May 3, 2012 at 11:01 am, in the category Uncategorized.
Comments are off for this post

24 Responses to “Off Topic, I Know”

  1. Riva says:

    Or possible a Goya portrait.

  2. Mary Gray says:

    Believe it or not, I have a “Scream” blow-up doll that I’ve kept in my classroom for a number of years. Everyone’s always thought it was really weird, but now I feel totally vindicated.

  3. The idea of 120 million on one painting makes me want to scream or become a dead painter.

  4. Deirdre says:

    Van Gogh

  5. Laura Bell says:

    I do love this painting, but I think there are a lot better things I could do with that $120 million.

  6. For me personally if I had $120,000,000 I’d be investing in land and research for establishing holistic ideas for Habitat restoration.

    I’d probably spend mre time in Tenerife too!

  7. While I *might* pay that much (assuming I had it, and more!) for The Tres Belles Heure de Jean, Duc de Berry, or the Book of Kells (Trinity College, Dublin), or some other calligraphic treasure I have yet to discover, I’m with Laura: I could do a lot of things with that money, aside from buying a single piece of art. I could buy some curvily organic Art Nouveau furniture, build a custom house with a conservatory for starting plants & keeping tender ones; a library with a stained glass dome, a clerestory above the floors of it, which would also serve as a ballroom; several round towers for the fun of it; a grand kitchen with plenty of storage, counters of different heights (or a worktable of same, for the differently sized cooks of this household; state of the art solar panels to offset power purchases; and a few acres to plan and plant out. Oh, and a retirement fund, artist residential program, and a charitable foundation to allow us to make a difference in the greater world, as opposed to our own microcosm.

  8. Sandra Flood says:

    Who has $120million to throw away on a painting and where did they get it from? It’s not even a painting I like, and if I remember rightly this is one of four versions.

  9. I do love this painting, but I think there are a lot better things I could do with that $120 million.

    Thanks for sharing with us..

  10. susan says:

    To me it seems like a good investment. If you had a small art collection already and added The Scream to it, then made a little museum charging $10 a head, if you were open year-round and had 100 visitors a day, you’d make back your money in 33 years. Plus resale value. As I work in Paris, there’s a lot of potential money in those famous pieces and the big ones dont go up for sale very often.

  11. DAY says:

    With a $120 million budget, I’d “paint” my own masterpiece. Starting with about a thousand acres of virgin forest, -with a waterfall .

    And, long after I am gone, folks would visit, just as they do at Versailles, Longwood Gardens, of some Nature Conservancy gem in your own hometown.

  12. tropaeolum says:

    $120 million. I could build a lot of animal shelters for that and have money to spare on building parks and saving farmland.

  13. filippine says:

    Indeed very much off Topic

  14. Kathryn says:

    The person who bought it has a lot more than the $120m he (probably a he) spent for it. So, he’s buying all those other things we think would be a better use of the money and most likely giving to charity, too.

    When the economic market for fine art comes back, it generally means the economic market for the rest of us is coming back.

    Besides, isn’t The Scream just a depiction of how we have all felt since September 2008?

  15. Lisa-St. Marys ON says:

    Kathryn – I had the same thoughts. This person obviously is not spending their “only” 120 million on this. They have lots more where that came from.

  16. Sandra Knauf says:

    How about using that 120M to help get us off foreign oil and foreign wars? Or start real farms that grow real food–that don’t make people fat and sick? It’s repulsive to me that someone would spend that amount of money on a prestige piece of art. It is neither useful nor beautiful.

  17. Sarah says:

    I concur–very much off target for gardeners. In fact your last number of posts were give-aways or pans of Home Depot. Hardly, gardening info unless you go around your elbow to reach the nose.

  18. MiSchelle says:

    I watched a news story on this very thing. It made me want to throw up. Apparently the one percenters have run out of things to buy so they’re now investing in art. This is global, too, not just Americans buying. One of the patrons at a recent Miami art show purchased millions in art. She’s a 26 year old Russian Princess spending daddy’s money. Sick, sick, sick.

  19. Laine says:

    Hey Sarah. You don’t have to be rude just because you don’t like the topics.

  20. march says:

    Whoa! Since when did appreciating and collecting art become a bad thing?

    Do you think it’s bad to buy an original piece at a local craft fair? To buy something that you like looking at or that moves you for your house or your garden? Isn’t this just the same impulse carried out on a more opulent scale?

    Being a patron of the arts, like making ornamental gardens, seems to me like a pretty benign way to spend part of your money.

    And they have similarities. Some people will criticize both as self-indulgent and say you should spend your money and time on something more serious. Both can also end up being viewed by or given to the public as a charitable act.

  21. greg draiss says:

    I would plant a VERY VERY LARGE LAWN

    The TROLL

  22. kermit says:

    march, this is all true, being a patron of the arts is good. But I could buy a dozen Maxfield Parrish paintings for this much money. Or eleven and one really nice garden…

    More importantly, it’s the current young artists that need support. If you have money and an eye for art, buy up works by the next generations of El Grecos and Manets. They’d be worth more in thirty years. If you have money and no eye for art, heck, buy ‘em anyway, just get what you like for $1000 rather than stuff like this for more because someone told you it was good.

    Folks with this kind of money are the ones who founded many of the museums we’ve been in and enjoyed.

  23. jemma says:

    Speaking of art collecting and supporting up-and-comers, there’s a terrific documentary about a postal clerk and a librarian who bought modern art they loved and ended up with a magnificent and valuable collection. Every surface in their small 1BR NYC apartment was covered with it, and all the cats in the apt. sidestepped it, too. The title is Herb and Dorothy.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1227929/
    They donated the collection to the National Gallery of Art, and at that time the inventory listed almost 5,000 works. They continued to collect art after the donation.

  24. greg draiss says:

    Yes they did but much of the collection was returned to them by the truckload……
    I believe their last name was Vogel

  • Follow Garden Rant

    Follow Me on Pinterest RSS