If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Eric Clapton sells some paint splattered on canvas for $34 million   (edition.cnn.com) divider line 44
    More: Interesting, Eric Clapton, Andy Richter, paints  
•       •       •

4369 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 13 Oct 2012 at 6:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-13 06:27:29 PM  
The headline implies Clapton painted it. He's just a savy art collector.
 
2012-10-13 06:33:37 PM  
There's no proof of Clapton.

/snark aside, fark Clapton.
 
2012-10-13 06:34:06 PM  
Rabo Karabekian approves.
 
2012-10-13 06:45:03 PM  
I have an art idea I think will sell.

Think Jackson Pollock but instead of paint drippings, it's the sperm and vag drippings of all your favourite porn stars.

Or the shiat of all your fave reality show stars, if that's your preference.
 
2012-10-13 06:49:36 PM  
Richter is a really talented artist, who works in a number of different styles. I don't fully understand the reasons for his abstracts, but they are beautiful, especially in person.

He also paints stuff which looks like this:

3.bp.blogspot.com

Bucky Katt: The headline implies Clapton painted it.


That's what I came in here wondering; no musician/artists' work sells for more than a couple hundred thousand at most.
 
2012-10-13 06:51:54 PM  
Looks like a beautiful painting, but $34 million? There's a beautiful home in Hawaii I saw listed not too long ago. Beachfront on an acre of land in a very upscale neighborhood. 8000 sq. feet under roof, 5 bedrooms, 6 baths, guest quarters, 5 car garage, tennis court and swimming pool. The listing price was $11 million. It's seems odd to me that someone could buy 3 homes of this quality for the price of that one painting. Art seems to follow the rule of the "greater fool".
 
2012-10-13 06:53:06 PM  

GungFu: Think Jackson Pollock but instead of paint drippings, it's the sperm and vag drippings of all your favourite porn stars.


Marcel Duchamp beat you to it. I give you Paysage fautif [Faulty Landscape], (1946):

blogs.walkerart.org

He gave it to a woman he fancied. Art historians long suspected was the -uh- medium was, but it was only recently someone tested it and found it to be sperm.
 
2012-10-13 07:04:36 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Looks like a beautiful painting, but $34 million? There's a beautiful home in Hawaii I saw listed not too long ago. Beachfront on an acre of land in a very upscale neighborhood. 8000 sq. feet under roof, 5 bedrooms, 6 baths, guest quarters, 5 car garage, tennis court and swimming pool. The listing price was $11 million. It's seems odd to me that someone could buy 3 homes of this quality for the price of that one painting. Art seems to follow the rule of the "greater fool".


The sort of person who's spending $34 million on a painting likely already has a house in Hawaii, and several pieces of real estate which are worth more than $50 million. The sort of people who are collecting this sort of art are billionaire hedge fund managers you've never heard of, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenburg, etc., for whom $34 million is not a large chunk of their annual income.

The Great Recession had one unusual feature: the art market didn't collapse, as it usually does during a recession. It's stayed strong, with prices for "hot" artists continuing to set records. Richter is 80. If he's still painting, it's at a much slower rate than even a decade ago. $34 million may seem like a lot to spend on a painting, but it was likely a good investment, as Richter is one of the most important artists of the 20th century.

It certainly was an excellent investment for Clapton at $3 million, and he's likely selling it as it's really too expensive for him to keep. It's the problem with being a smart collector: not only can you get priced out of your field, but as values increase, so does your insurance.
 
2012-10-13 07:42:07 PM  
How do you play the blues after you've sold a painting for 34 million?
 
2012-10-13 07:44:37 PM  

0Icky0: How do you play the blues after you've sold a painting for 34 million?


Write a song about missing your painting?

Money doesn't make everyone happy.
 
2012-10-13 07:51:10 PM  

0Icky0: How do you play the blues after you've sold a painting for 34 million?


Clapton parted ways with the blues somewhere around 1969
 
2012-10-13 07:51:59 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Atomic Spunk: Looks like a beautiful painting, but $34 million? There's a beautiful home in Hawaii I saw listed not too long ago. Beachfront on an acre of land in a very upscale neighborhood. 8000 sq. feet under roof, 5 bedrooms, 6 baths, guest quarters, 5 car garage, tennis court and swimming pool. The listing price was $11 million. It's seems odd to me that someone could buy 3 homes of this quality for the price of that one painting. Art seems to follow the rule of the "greater fool".

The sort of person who's spending $34 million on a painting likely already has a house in Hawaii, and several pieces of real estate which are worth more than $50 million. The sort of people who are collecting this sort of art are billionaire hedge fund managers you've never heard of, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenburg, etc., for whom $34 million is not a large chunk of their annual income.

The Great Recession had one unusual feature: the art market didn't collapse, as it usually does during a recession. It's stayed strong, with prices for "hot" artists continuing to set records. Richter is 80. If he's still painting, it's at a much slower rate than even a decade ago. $34 million may seem like a lot to spend on a painting, but it was likely a good investment, as Richter is one of the most important artists of the 20th century.

It certainly was an excellent investment for Clapton at $3 million, and he's likely selling it as it's really too expensive for him to keep. It's the problem with being a smart collector: not only can you get priced out of your field, but as values increase, so does your insurance.


I'm aware of the types of people who buy this type of art and I'm certainly not saying it's not worth it. I'm just comparing two assets - one that likely took tens of thousands of man hours to build using millions of dollars worth of materials on a very desirable piece of land, and compare it to a piece of art that maybe took several hundred man hours to create (if that) and maybe a couple hundred dollars of materials (if that). The latter is worth over 3 times the former. I'm aware that fine art can sometimes be a phenomenal investment, but it's just something I have a hard time wrapping my mind around. But then again, I own a fair amount of gold bullion which also requires a "greater fool" than myself if I ever want to sell for a gain, so what do I know?

If I had an obscene amount of money, though, I'd buy a work by Richter before I'd even consider buying anything by Damien Hirst. Hirst seems to be setting the art world on fire, though. Amazing.
 
2012-10-13 07:55:20 PM  

Atomic Spunk: If I had an obscene amount of money, though, I'd buy a work by Richter before I'd even consider buying anything by Damien Hirst. Hirst seems to be setting the art world on fire, though. Amazing.


I am not a big fan of his stuff but he seems like an interesting guy.
 
2012-10-13 08:15:29 PM  
whither_apophis

Clapton parted ways with the blues somewhere around 1969

1994's "From The Cradle", 2000's "Riding With The King", and 2004's "Me and Mr. Johnson" would like a word.
 
2012-10-13 08:46:40 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: GungFu: Think Jackson Pollock but instead of paint drippings, it's the sperm and vag drippings of all your favourite porn stars.

Marcel Duchamp beat you to it. I give you Paysage fautif [Faulty Landscape], (1946):

[blogs.walkerart.org image 296x370]

He gave it to a woman he fancied. Art historians long suspected was the -uh- medium was, but it was only recently someone tested it and found it to be sperm.


I really need to stop going to galleries and licking stuff for fun. Artists are weird
 
2012-10-13 08:46:58 PM  
according to a quote on his website from 1966.

Wow, talk about your early adopter.
 
2012-10-13 08:48:06 PM  
PT Barnum was right.
 
2012-10-13 08:55:47 PM  
I'm still disturbed about his support for the British nationalist party.
 
2012-10-13 08:56:27 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: GungFu: Think Jackson Pollock but instead of paint drippings, it's the sperm and vag drippings of all your favourite porn stars.

Marcel Duchamp beat you to it. I give you Paysage fautif [Faulty Landscape], (1946):

[blogs.walkerart.org image 296x370]

He gave it to a woman he fancied. Art historians long suspected was the -uh- medium was, but it was only recently someone tested it and found it to be sperm.


Looks like sperm, chew, and pasta sauce.
 
2012-10-13 09:07:11 PM  

Gunny Highway: 0Icky0: How do you play the blues after you've sold a painting for 34 million?

Write a song about missing your painting?

Money doesn't make everyone happy.


I doubt it makes many blue.
 
2012-10-13 09:07:39 PM  

FunkOut: I'm still disturbed about his support for the British nationalist party.


"Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out, get the wogs out, get the coons out"... Keep Britain White!"

Classy guy. He can get farked.
 
2012-10-13 09:18:44 PM  

Atomic Spunk: I'm aware of the types of people who buy this type of art and I'm certainly not saying it's not worth it. I'm just comparing two assets - one that likely took tens of thousands of man hours to build using millions of dollars worth of materials on a very desirable piece of land, and compare it to a piece of art that maybe took several hundred man hours to create (if that) and maybe a couple hundred dollars of materials (if that). The latter is worth over 3 times the former. I'm aware that fine art can sometimes be a phenomenal investment, but it's just something I have a hard time wrapping my mind around. But then again, I own a fair amount of gold bullion which also requires a "greater fool" than myself if I ever want to sell for a gain, so what do I know?

If I had an obscene amount of money, though, I'd buy a work by Richter before I'd even consider buying anything by Damien Hirst. Hirst seems to be setting the art world on fire, though. Amazing.


The Richter would be the better investment in every way. Hirst was setting the art world on fire 15 years ago, but his flame has now dimmed. The hot new thing is Bansky, Shepard Fairy and "Street Art". Hirst tried to sell a bunch of his work at auction a couple years ago, prices were soft and a number of pieces didn't sell. His platinum and diamond skull hasn't found a buyer yet, either, though he's making money off of it by selling photographs of it.

I really don't know why this Richter brought what it did; I haven't been following his sale price. His work doesn't come up all that often, and there's a lot of it in museums (the Philly museum has at least three of his paintings, one in each major style) already. His age is probably driving things as well. The last living artist whose work brought this sort of money at auction was Jasper Johns, who's about the same age.

In fact, had I that sort of money to spend on art, Jasper Johns would be my safe bet. He's never painted much and even his minor works are bringing $15 million at the moment.

It's hard to explain why a major piece of artwork will bring about the same as the most expensive residence, but it has to do with the adage about real estate: they're not making any more of it. They're not making any more Jackson Pollocks, either.

The highest price for a residence in Manhattan was set in the last year when a Russian paid $88 million for an apartment at 15 CPW. It's not the best apartment in Manhattan, nor is it the biggest; you could have better for less (especially if you can get into a co-op, which the Russian couldn't). The record for a painting was also set in the last year when the Qatari royal family paid $250 million.

Now, there are five versions of the card players: one in Paris at the d'Orsay, one in London at the Courtauld, one at the Met in New York, one in the Barnes collection here and the one the Qataris bought. So out of five paintings, only one of them was ever going to come up for sale: the one they bought.

That's what drives the art market at the high end: not only are people fighting over very rare things, they're fighting over an ever-dwindling supply of rare things. The reason billionaires today are buying Jackson Pollocks instead of Rembrandts is that there aren't any good Rembrandts to be had: they're all in museums.

In the last year, a woman named Lily Safra set the record for art at auction when she paid $100 million for a statue by Giacometti called Walking Man I. It is one of six casts made, five of which are in museums. It was expected to sell for about a quarter of what it did, but apparently Lily has always had her heart set on owning one, so she was willing to go higher than everyone else.

There's another aspect to all this, one which I can understand: you buy a Rolls Royce and everyone knows you have lots of money. Buy a penthouse in Manhattan and everyone knows you're exceedingly wealthy. Buy a Mark Rothko, a Jasper Johns or a Richter and only a limited number of people are going to know how much is hanging on your wall. An even smaller number will walk into your house and be able to tell if you've got a good Rothko or a great one.

Art collecting, like a lot of collectibles, is an exclusive club. I buy and sell stuff for a living, but I do collect things for myself, and because of the business I'm in, I get things really cheap. But the stuff I collect doesn't look like money; I've always said that if someone broke into my house, they'd take the TV and the computer and leave all the valuable stuff behind.
 
Skr
2012-10-13 09:22:03 PM  
That painting actually looks pretty nice in that lighting. Most done in that style look like a cat knocked over paint cans.
 
2012-10-13 09:33:30 PM  

Skr: That painting actually looks pretty nice in that lighting. Most done in that style look like a cat knocked over paint cans.


Richter does something weird which is really obvious when you see these abstracts in person: he uses a squeegee or something similar (I've always guessed it was a silk-screening tool) to pull and push the paint across the canvass. He's used the same technique to smear the paint on some of his realistic works as well.
 
2012-10-13 09:41:19 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: ...That's what drives the art market at the high end: not only are people fighting over very rare things, they're fighting over an ever-dwindling supply of rare things. ...


Thank you for the explanation, Dwight - you certainly know your stuff.
 
2012-10-13 09:46:56 PM  
Insert eric crapton engrish jpg here.
 
2012-10-13 09:53:25 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Dwight_Yeast: ...That's what drives the art market at the high end: not only are people fighting over very rare things, they're fighting over an ever-dwindling supply of rare things. ...

Thank you for the explanation, Dwight - you certainly know your stuff.


Do a GIS for him. He's painted some interesting stuff.
 
2012-10-13 10:20:34 PM  
Don't use the word "splatter" around Eric Clapton.
 
2012-10-13 10:29:23 PM  

0Icky0: How do you play the blues after you've sold a painting for 34 million?


Think about your four year old son who fell out a window and plunged 48 stories to his death?
 
2012-10-13 11:00:53 PM  
I understand that people want to buy things that hold value, but I just can't understand how this thing has value.
Who holds the power in ascending a painting from art to "art"? 
Maybe the monks that find the next Dalai Lama do it?
 
2012-10-13 11:15:46 PM  
Dear modern art:

I can't wait for you to get the shiat pirated out of you. A monkey could do that crap. YOU are what piracy was made for.

Sincerely, someone with more sense than money.
 
2012-10-13 11:58:07 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Dwight_Yeast: ...That's what drives the art market at the high end: not only are people fighting over very rare things, they're fighting over an ever-dwindling supply of rare things. ...

Thank you for the explanation, Dwight - you certainly know your stuff.


Thanks. It makes me feel like my degree (in art history) is actually worth something. And like I said, I work in a related field, so this is something I've given a lot of thought to.

God-is-a-Taco: I understand that people want to buy things that hold value, but I just can't understand how this thing has value.
Who holds the power in ascending a painting from art to "art"?


That's sort of a difficult question, as there's no one answer to it. In the case of Richter, he went to art school and has been painting since the 1950s. He's part of a generation of post-War German artist who -in their own ways- tried to come to terms with WWII, Hitler, the Holocaust, etc. I didn't hear about him until the late 90s, when I was in college, but I don't know why. He had a retrospective at MoMA in 2002, which (as it often does for artists) sealed his reputation.

But you don't have to follow the art school part to get recognized; Warhol was trained as a graphic artist and was pretty well known for his illustration work in the 1950s. He decided to cross over and beat his head against the problem until he came up with something new: paintings of comic strips and then soup cans. It then only took a couple years until he was famous and rich, but he was still somewhat marginalized for the rest of his career. His paintings only started selling for stupid money in the last decade, as he's become the Godfather of all art which came after him, a reputation I'm not sure he deserves.

Then you've got someone like Andrew Wyeth, who had no formal training (he was home-schooled by his parents, and his father, NC Wyeth taught him to paint), but who had so much talent he had no problem getting his first gallery show at 20. MoMA bought Christina's World when he was 31 (the year it was painted), and by the end of his life, he was financing his existence by selling a couple of paintings a year.

The weird thing about Wyeth is his collectors: his paintings tend to change hands privately, and almost never come up at auction, so most people don't realize how valuable his work is becoming. I know at the end of his life he was getting around $4 million a painting for his new work, but I have no idea what his best work from the 50s or 60s would bring as you never see them at auction.

As to art holding value, yes, people like to buy things which increase in value, but that doesn't always happen; van Gogh's works reached their zenith in the late 80s and have dropped off since then. Like I said, Damien Hirst's work is no longer bringing ever-increasing sums.

In the early 20th century, there was a vast collapse of the art market, finally and definitively tanking in 1929. A ton of painters you've probably never heard of (guys like Bougereau and Meissenier) saw the value of their work collapse, and it's never recovered though their paintings are making their way back onto the walls in some museums. At the same time, the value of works by Impressionists started to climb rapdly. I suspect in the next 20 years there's going to be another die-off this time in the values of some Modernist. It will be interesting to see who've left holding the bag when it happens.
 
2012-10-14 12:21:56 AM  
www.toptenz.net

Painted on Clapton's Canvas well before he did.
 
2012-10-14 01:47:28 AM  

halB: Dear modern art:

I can't wait for you to get the shiat pirated out of you. A monkey could do that crap. YOU are what piracy was made for.

Sincerely, someone with more sense than money.



Do tell.
 
2012-10-14 05:04:30 AM  

Dwight_Yeast:
But you don't have to follow the art school part to get recognized...


Thanks for the answer. ^This is the part that confuses me.

Is it the art dealer, the "discoverer", that declares the value?
The painting gains its value the moment a second party declares it valuable?
From that point, the artist's works gain a certain value, and of course it's retroactive.

But... how does one gain the authority to drastically alter an item's value without modifying it?


I just don't get it. My brain doesn't work that way. I can't comprehend it, or maybe I refuse to.

(I'm trying not to sound condescending or anything here, so sorry if it comes out that way)
 
2012-10-14 07:26:55 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: Now, there are five versions of the card players: one in Paris at the d'Orsay, one in London at the Courtauld, one at the Met in New York, one in the Barnes collection here and the one the Qataris bought.


Which version is this?
www.cardsanddominoes.com
 
2012-10-14 08:09:08 AM  
Whatever happened with that old woman who bought what may have been a Jackson Pollock painting from a thrift shop for $5?

A quick google search reminds me that her name was Teri Horton, and that she threatened to destroy it out of spite if she wasn't given what she felt it was worth (~$50,000,000). But I can't find any real details about whether or not it was found to be authentic, or whether she ended up selling it.

Anybody know how that ended up?
 
2012-10-14 08:14:44 AM  

halB: Dear modern art:

I can't wait for you to get the shiat pirated out of you. A monkey could do that crap. YOU are what piracy was made for.

Sincerely, someone with more sense than money.


You should learn what "modern art" is before you condem it.

Unless you enjoy sounding ignorant.
 
2012-10-14 08:36:27 AM  

Bucky Katt: The headline implies Clapton painted it. He's just a savy art collector.


So he likes coloured after all. I guess his collection became overcrowded and he decided to get rid of some cARToons
 
2012-10-14 08:55:48 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: The Great Recession had one unusual feature: the art market didn't collapse, as it usually does during a recession.


Of course, such things were meant for the little people, not the elites. Where do you think the money they were spending on art came from?
/Bush era sucks
//and keeps on sucking
 
2012-10-14 09:28:21 AM  

GibbyTheMole: whither_apophis

Clapton parted ways with the blues somewhere around 1969

1994's "From The Cradle", 2000's "Riding With The King", and 2004's "Me and Mr. Johnson" would like a word.


Most definitely. His pop songs mostly suck, but he is one of the greatest electric blues guitarists alive today ... not that there's that many blues guitarists around these days.

Mugato: Don't use the word "splatter" around Eric Clapton.


Anyone who laughed at this is going straight to hell ... including me.
 
2012-10-14 12:50:48 PM  

whither_apophis: 0Icky0: How do you play the blues after you've sold a painting for 34 million?

Clapton parted ways with the blues somewhere around 1969


Robert Johnson begs to differ
 
2012-10-14 03:35:18 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2012-10-14 06:51:04 PM  

God-is-a-Taco: Is it the art dealer, the "discoverer", that declares the value?
The painting gains its value the moment a second party declares it valuable?
From that point, the artist's works gain a certain value, and of course it's retroactive.

But... how does one gain the authority to drastically alter an item's value without modifying it?


Those are really good questions, and again there's no single answer to them.

The easy answer is that something is worth what someone is willing to pay you for it. But just because one person pays a certain sum for a work of art doesn't mean it's going to be worth that to anyone else. I've seen plenty of decorator art (art which matches your sofa) which people have paid thousands for but which has trouble making $100 at auction.

When it comes to gallery artists, their work is often very volatile at the beginning of their careers, letting smart collectors get really good deals. Once an artist has had a few shows, been written about, and sold a lot of work, the prices for what they make tend to become established. In the secondary (resale) market, what sets the price is auction sales, which is why a lot of younger artists (like Damien Hirst) have taken to consigning work directly to major auction house's contemporary art sales.

When it comes to art dealers, there's a lot of salesmenship, fluff and bullshiat that goes into what they do, how they sell works and how they set prices. Back in the old days, there were dealers like Leo Castelli, who were known for having an "eye", who could make an artist's career by signing them and giving them a show. By the 1970s. (and I think this continues somewhat today) gallery owners were attending MFA shows at major east coast art schools and signing artists before they'd gotten their diplomas.

Chuck Close is a good example: he showed a single painting for his MFA at Yale (a nude the size of a billboard) and was signed by a gallery in NYC. His first show introduced the huge portrait heads he's been doing ever since. They took a huge amount of work, so they were priced high to begin with, and he's never been prolific, but they're so obviously good that they've always sold. He's now paralyzed, which has reduced his output, but driven his prices up. His talent got him where he is today, but it was that gallery owner who signed him who created his career as an artist.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report