Rachel Reeves Closing Down Sale........
News1 min ago
People urged to get a grip as straight faces declare 50m Euro price tag.
It's like a vandalised inner city fence panel.
No best answer has yet been selected by douglas9401. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.While disapproving of damaging art; it is clearly not something worth €50m. I don't know how much the materials cost but at most the labour is probably a day's worth at, say, €400 a day ? Maybe.
This is the issue when art is defined by those calling themselves artists and valued by those with less sense than money, and who are gullible enough to buy into anything they're told.
Some amusing examples in the link - especially the Dutch Town Hall throwing some art works away with the rubbish (including an Andy Warhol).
Details here :-
https:/
I wonder if they will be charged 😀
I get that whether art is liked or not is subjective, but even with that there is an awful lot of emperor's new clothes.
The gushing flowery language in the link below is laughable given some of the subject's artwork includes placing blutack on walls and crumpling up a sheet of A4 paper.
As for the damaged painting, I just struggle to comprehend how it can be valued at 50m Euros.
Au contraire Douglé. When Rothko painted this in 1960, I'll bet he maybe got a few hundred dollars for it. Like the piece or not, subsequent price hikes are nothing to do with the original 'value.'
These are two separate issues. Money talks. In fact it positively screams 'investment' in your ear. The investment element leaves the original artist well out of it.
I've always liked Rothko (puts on tin hat.) Come back in 5 or 10 years when it's 75m 😏
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.