Yesterday 5/5/10 a painting which Picasso made in a single day was sold for 106.5 million dollars at an auction. It is a new record for a work of art and the bid reached the selling price within barely 9 minutes.
Do you think the amount of money is an indication of its real worth or is it just because the thing is a Picasso? If everything Picasso created is worth Millions is the emphasis on the work or the man? And in general what should determine the value of an artistic work? Follow the link to see the painting in question and let’s hear what you have to say.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/picasso-sold-at-auction-for-106-5-million-a-world-record/
Obviously a large chunk of that $106.5 million bid, was for the fact that it was a painting by Picasso himself, and not just the painting! In my opinion, judgements of “value” in art, do not only encompass the art piece alone, but “who” the artist is! Yes, I must admit this painting is a masterpiece, one which I truly love, but not more so than other spectacular ones by Borticelli, Bernoulli, Michelangelo, …you name them! I’m a Pablo Picasso fan, because his blend of colour, lines, patterns, shapes, symbols speak volumes, that appeal to me. But I’m no artist, analyst or critic, hence my valued judgements are strictly perceptive, emotive and from my interpretations. The message of this painting comes so strongly to me and I guess that is what makes me believe the piece is worth a lot. Nevertheless, I still ascertain that a large chunk of the money is in honour of the name “Pablo Picasso”! In fact, assuming this same painting was done by some unknown artist? Would it auction for as much? Would it be regarded as spectacular as it is now?Maybe yes... but not as much as $ 106.5 million!!! Then again, some may argue that …this is the very reason why it is worth this much...because it is simply a unique depiction of a “Picasso” that can never be emulated! That’s the power of art…
ReplyDeletei think the painting was worth that much because it was by Picasso a famous artist but who knows maybe the drawing was worth it too. How does one tell a drawing is bad or good? really one can never know for sure. we judge it according to our own interpretation and perception. but it is unfair since the artist could have had a different view yet someone comes and says it it bad art. so i think we should appreciate every piece of art cause it is unique to everyone. and yes if it wasn't Picasso thing would have been very different.
ReplyDeleteSheila
I totally agree that the painting was worth that much because it was done by Picasso who's already a famous artist. The beauty and quality of the picture itself had a no or very little impact on determining the price of the picture.
ReplyDeleteSo if the picture was sold that much just because the artist is famous, does that mean that all the other paintings done by the some artist will be sold for such prices? Should the status of the artist be a contributing factor to its value? Being the best doesn't mean that you will always produce the best.
As much as we would try to avoid this, i believe that by all means, it will still have an impact. What if Picasso decided to draw another 'bad' picture intentionally just to see how much it would fetch him compared to the one sold. Do you think the differences in their prices would be that great? I don't think so.
I think Pablo Picasso's picture would not have sold to that amount if he had not been famous before for his wonderful art works. It is obvious that the picture was sold at a higher price because of his fame; this and many factors caused his picture to be expensive. I believe that this painting would have sold at a lower price if this was a painting from a new and different artist. But is this how art is rated? What of painting from “The Bad Art Museum”? Who rates art? Pablo's first paintings might have made him famous but what of a painting that took him a day and the next it sells for a hundred and more million. I believe human beings have a different perception in all things, though there might be similar characteristics here and there, how sure are we that the painting is as good as it is said to be? Well, the painting “Nu au Plateau de Sculpteur (Nude, Green Leaves and Bust) which is a painting of Pablo's mistress. The painting might be seen as good from different views the blending of colors, the tone in the painting and the different feelings it communicates to the looker. I think this painting is good but it would not deserve the amount of money that it has been bought with. I agree with Metty this painting got its high price because of its owner. No one can ever draw like Pablo, the painting cannot be similar to any because of its uniqueness. But that is the splendor of it all.
ReplyDeleteWould Picasso be famous without being a great artist first?
ReplyDeleteI think that Mr Kidane's question has answered the problem. Would Picasso be famous without being a great artist first?????
ReplyDeleteI think we all know the answer to this.
He is famous because of his beautiful works of art. Yes No doubt. He wouldn't have been famous if it wasn't for all the painting he made.
However, are we saying that every single painting by Picasso is totally beautiful and deserves all the praise and everything?
Picasso's fame was built on his works and not on his name. However, there are more paintings in the world which are probably of more worth than some of Picasso's paintings.
Seriously speaking, people auto tune their minds as soon as they hear that a painting is by Picasso. Immediately, the painting is supposed to be Beautiful and worth a lot of million dollars. However, an unknown painter's painting whose beauty is equal to that of Picasso's is not even close to a million dollars.
On the other hand, if it is actually, that beautiful, the painting will actually be acknowledged by people bidding a whole lot for the painting.
I will not disagree with the fact that, this painting is a true masterpiece, extremely beautiful.
However, im absolutely sure that, the $ 106.5 million is not all from the worth of the painting. Surely, part of this money has roots in the fact that, the name "Picasso" is attached to the painting.
Firstly in response to Mr. kidane's question I think that Picasso may not have been famous without being a great artist first. I’m sure that certain criteria are used by art critics to judge a piece. Like the type of media and the difficulty using those media and mediums are all considered. As well as, I guess the originality of the piece.
ReplyDeleteHowever I personally think that the price of the painting is largely due to the fact that it was a Picasso and that there are certain bragging right to having such a piece of art. I mean there’s a story of an art piece found in a dumpster that was worth a million dollars by a Mexican painter. I’ m wondering whether if no one knew that it was a Picasso it would fetch such a price.
The timeframe used to paint the piece is also very important to the value of the painting. This painting took a day to be made. I mean let’s consider our arts students who spend weeks and months finishing their art pieces. There is also the added fact that it is 5X4 feet. I think that might largely count for the price and the rarity of the painting. Plus the added bonus of it being a Picasso.
As a good artist you have to have done amazing works to be able to be valued so highly. However Picasso has made an image for himself, yes I do agree he must be creative on a superior level but also the paintings he has done are also subject to subjectivity. Some paintings I see I feel like I can paint them with my eyes closed and just throw paint on a canvas. However the difference between me doing that and Picasso doing it is that Picassos image will make art critics read meaning into it. They may see the colours as symbols and the pattern in which it was spread a way of showing emotions or haste or destructions when it is just merely someone throwing paint on a canvas. In my view it is because it is Picasso that has done the painting that it has been valued so highly. Also some people may just buy the paintings to show their status in the society, like “I have a painting by Picasso in my bathroom’ .....woow.
ReplyDeleteEwurabena Dee mentioned that the value of Picasso's works is connected to their beauty. Is beauty the source of value in art?
ReplyDeleteI feel that undoubtedly, the value of the painting was so high because of the fact that it was painted by an artist of such repute as Pablo Picasso.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the painting does have a lot of merit on its own, depending on your view of Picasso's 1930's works.
The are certain criteria for judging an art work; we might for example focus on composition, colour, style, form, texture, perspective etc. However, this is not the kind of thing the average person would know about.
I do however think that there is no way that anybody would spend $106 million on a painting without attempt to obtain an appreciation of the work. The kinds of people which that nuch amounts of money are usually very shrewd when it comes to money. They would want to know what exactly they are getting for their $100m. In all likelyhood, in about half a century, this painting will be worth much more and the buyer can turn a handsome profit on selling it.
However, there is another side of art auctions that I would like to address? Is is fair that rich people should be able to collect expensive art masterpieces and keep them in their homes such that only very few people can appreciate them. The fabulous paintings of Picasso, Van Gogh and so on are arguably testimony to the zenith of human endeavor in the art. Should appreciation of these works be limited to just the rich few? Or should they instead be put on display in museums where they can be appreciated by a larger audience?
In response to Mr. Kitching’s question, beauty is a source of value on a personal level. Perhaps for Ewurabena Dee, beauty is the main thing she looks out for when judging works of art but she is not wrong at all. However, for critics, that is people who are learned in such fields, beauty is at the bottom of their criteria for judging a work of out because honestly, I have seen some work of arts that I strongly believe belong to the Museum of Bad Art but they are according to critics the best works ever made.
ReplyDeleteThe fame people create for live after them so yes one of the reasons why this painting by Picasso was bought at such a high price is because of the name associated with it. I will not be surprised if the buyer does not even appreciate the work for what it is but instead purchased it because of the feeling of aristocracy associated with owning such praised work of art. The other likely reasons could be the emotion evoked in the buyer by that painting or the aesthetic beauty.
In my class, we were trying to come up with a category for judging paintings and someone said that a good painting is one that the RULES of art have been applied but someone else suggested that rules be changed to PRINCIPLES instead as it makes the art too mechanical. In support of this I made a point about how symmetry helped to make a painting a good one but I was immediately attacked by people who said symmetry in the arts will make it mathematical and take way its liberty and that symmetry has nothing to do with arts. I even brought up the argument of the GOLDEN RATIO being employed to enhance the aesthetic beauty of the work as we learnt from mathematics but it was the same response. When we take a look at paintings like The Vitruvian Man and Mona Lisa bought by Da Vinci, we can see how symmetry is employed and indeed they some of the renowned paintings in the world. What do the rest of you think about this???
I made a mistake in my last sentence which should read, The Vitruvian Man and Mona Lisa BOTH by Da Vinci and not bough.
ReplyDeleteAlso interesting is the fact that this painting was made in a single day which kind of proves that a painting should not have taken long to complete for it to be worth a monstrous sum of money as one of my mates suggested for a reason why a work of art should be one of the best.
Thank you Kojo, for asking ' Should appreciation of these works be limited to just the rich few?'Today in TOK we discussed how art is somehow limited only to the rich. Look at all those famous artist we have today.... some of them lived by selling a piece of their art (which did not cost much anywhere) A hundred years later what do their paintings become? They are classic paintings. Everyone wants to be associated with such 'beauty'.I honestly think today, art is judged only by the educated, the ones who have a background off Art and can easily identify a famous piece of art.
ReplyDeleteFrom the above comments it’s so obvious that the author of a master piece has a great influence on the art regardless of its meaning and beauty. Paintings by this celebrated man Picasso were revealed in class, I was so amazed when Mr. Kamau said they were world classic paintings. I was greatly disappointed at what was judged to be a good painting. The colure contrast was awful, it didn’t have any natural surrounding which triggered any feelings when I first saw it, also, I couldn’t read any meaning from it. Any art piece that satisfies these criteria’s I believe is a good painting. Well for an artist like Picasso, it is not convincing by a mere looking at his paintings rather you have to read his own analysis to understand what he’s trying to portray. Picasso based on my criteria is not a good artist as compared to the “Monalissa” by Davinci which evokes meaning by a mere look. Most people will disagree with this but……to judge whether his painting was worth that amount, I will say no.
ReplyDelete*~Nyarkoa~*
In my opinion, that amount of money is the monetary value that the buyer placed on the painting. If it wasn’t a Picasso, that buyer will not have offered so much for it. Obviously an unrecognized artist’s painting as good as Picasso’s would not have sold as much. But what if there were other paintings of Picasso in the gallery which the buyer did not value as much as the one that was bought? So looking at it from the two sides, he could have bought it just because the name “Picasso” was attached to it but also could have offered so much money for it because it was a valuable piece of work. I agree with Tori then, that “judgements of “value” in art do not only encompass the art piece alone, but “who” the artist is.” For me, even looking at the time taken to do such a wonderful piece means that Picasso himself is worth a lot. But it is his good works that have brought him this fame and worth.
ReplyDeleteWhat determines the value of art?
First of all, art is subjective. The value that I will place on this painting will not be the same as everyone else’s. I might judge based on the message that the painting carries; the reason behind such a piece of work, aesthetic beauty and the kind of reaction (emotions) I get on seeing this painting. Another person could judge based on totally different criteria. For example, Nyarkoa said she did not like the painting because the colour contrast was awful. That's her own perception. Or even if the emotion being experienced by both of us is the same, will the intensity be the same? I do believe though, that beauty is a source of value in art.
~MZ~
I am only going to embellish what my friends above have already said. In order to properly elucidate my point, i would first confess that i do not share the sentiments of most people who find art very captivating. As such, my view on this issue is purely objective and unbiased. I know of some some of the world's greatest painters, an example being picasso himself and i will not deny that the painter's name is more influential than the nature of the painting itself because if i was given a choice between a painting by an unknown person and that by picasso, i would be most likely to choose that by picasso just because of his name.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mr Kitching's question, I would like to reiterate that, the value of a work of art is indeed connected to beauty.
ReplyDeleteBeauty might not be the only source of value in art. There are many others "sources of beauty" in art (remember the criteria we came up with in class??? Balance and the rest...) However, beauty is just one of the sources. I would like to also state that, when we talk about beauty in arts, we do not refer only to the physical appearance and how attractive it is. Beauty, as it is said is not only on the outside.... it could actually even refer to the way that the artist carries his message. We could say that, the artist does this in a beautiful way. An example is with music. People call some music beautiful. I don't think they say that with the physical beauty of the music (or the arrangement of the treble clef on the music sheet:) in mind.
Probably, to the layperson somewhere who doesn't have a clue about appreciating an art piece, physical beauty will most probably be the only criterion for judging the worth of the art piece.
I’m not a fun of paintings but i classify the paintings as beautiful if i like their colors and if I like the painting it is because of what I get from the interpretation or the message it gives. I hardly understand Picasso’s paintings. People have told me sorts of stories about his paintings but still. I think that his paintings are targeted at the rich and he seem to know their tasty in paintings. But looking at the time in which the painting was done…it does not it deserve the value that the people have placed on it. Like you’ve said it was bought at 106.5million because it was a Picasso painting and the people already like his paintings. The first painting he did won him all the consumer loyalty he needed even though some his paintings are of the same value as any painting by another artist his painting will be sold at a higher price. I seriously don’t know how other people tell if a paintings is beautiful….i know that in my classification the colour of the painting comes first.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what everyone is so worked up about cos I love the painting. Its hypnotizing and I think it carries so much more than it shows. I would still have paid for it even if I didn’t know it was by Picasso. I don’t even know Picasso but I know that the painting is beautiful and it carries meaning. It truly has value but the magnitude of its value I cannot really say. As well, what classifies the art as worth the money or not?
ReplyDeleteMany people will definitely buy a painting because of the painter as well as the beauty of the painting. Beauty also varies thus very subjective. I admire painting so much but it’s not everything that fascinates me. I like drawings of animals and nature so no matter the painter I will purchase if the need be. I think when it comes to the arts, the painter, musician; actor etc determines how much the work sells in addition to its quality. So I agree with Ampong that Picasso’s popularity influenced the worth of the art work. Though his name is influential, it is his hard work that has earned him his popularity thus his works are in no doubt one of the best.
ReplyDeleteBeauty and subjectivity are two concepts that have been discussed in this thread. Let's try to take this a bit further.
ReplyDeleteI agree that beauty can definitely be a reason why people value works of art. And I also agree that it isn't the only possible reason.
Now it is often said that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" - in fact it is so often said that it has become a well-worn cliche - but, the cliche notwithstanding, I think most of us would agree that there is at the very least a subjective element in the identification and appreciation of beauty.
But if people are asked to give examples of things that are beautiful, don't the answers converge to some extent (try it with your friends)? Just because we don't all agree all the time doesn't mean that there is no tendency at all. Mustn't this also be the case with moral judgements - we differ but there are no cultures around the world where murder, torture, cruelty and so on are agreed to be morally good - these things might happen but that is a different thing. Perhaps you experienced some of this convergence in the art lesson last week... On a more practical note, if we insist that art appreciation is ENTIRELY an individual matter, then what is there left to say about it? It's a conversational dead end - so much for your treatment of the arts in your final TOK essay!
Anyway, IF there is at least some tendency for people to perceive similar objects as beautiful and others as ugly, THEN it opens the way to ask about the origins of this partial agreement. Has it anything to do with proportion or simplicity (and thus connects to mathematical concepts)? Could it be that our species has evolved to perceive certain things as beautiful, and so this is the source of the convergence?
I agree with you Mr Kitching when you say"On a more practical note, if we insist that art appreciation is ENTIRELY an individual matter, then what is there left to say about it? It's a conversational dead end - so much for your treatment of the arts in your final TOK essay!"
ReplyDelete(laugh) (laugh) but i think when writing the final TOK essay more relevent points will be raised. (laugh)but as for now I want to quote this by Lewis Carroll"
The time has come,’
‘To talk of many things:
Of Shoes–and ships – and sealing-wax
I dont know if it goes along with the content of my writing.
I agree with Cynthia that is either Picasso has gained some sort of fame or something for producing the most “beautiful” arts work. "Beautiful" here is subjective. So then his paintings are on high demand by people because they admire his drawings. Meaning that they have become insensitive to any price Picasso decides to sell his art works . someone’s opinion on a “beautiful” art work can make he/she buy his paintings at their own . prices. Do you need to become famous artist before you sell your paintings at high prices or is one of benefits you enjoy
ReplyDelete? This means that being a famous artist add to your value. If Picasso should produce any unattractive art works, will it be noticed by people? I doubt to them his paintings are the best so they expect that any new art is extraordinary. I disaagree being famous is the only factor that enable Picasso sell his art works at high prices. I think there were many factors that went into him selling his paintings at high prices.
Wow that is ALOT of money to pay for an art work! when i first saw the picture ithought really? is this what someone was willing to pay that much for?(im not the biggest fan of picasso though i am sure most people would agree that indeed beauty lies in the eye of a beholder. What i look out for in a painting is a hidden message(or second layer of meaning) then how the artist managed to convey this meaning (i.e lines color etc) before placing my overall judgement)then I saw the size, which is more than 5 feet by 4 feet and then i though that makes slightly more sense, i mean such a large canvas in one day and for that i say is remarkable (arguably he may have done nothing else but that painting the whole day, unlike our students who have other things plus art to do, which is why they take that time (@skiski)
ReplyDeleteWhether the painting was great or not, the question is, is the value of the painting a true reflection of the piece itself? I think that today, the value of painting largely depends on the artist himself. It seems as though today, people react to a painting, first by the name, even before viewing the painting itself...like some people's minds are preconditioned even before viewing the art.
I agree with those who say that it is not fair that the rich few are the only ones who have such paintings. Though it is not my money, as great an artwork as people claim it is, i hope it would be placed somewhere where many people can see it. I mean, I would not even know the Mona Lisa if some rich banker had bought it and like temitope said "put it in their bathroom"
Well i am the type of person who isn't really interested in any aspect of the arts, but i think the person who purchased this piece was probably a wealthy fan of Picasso's. I personally wouldn't spend that much on a painting out of its beauty, but the judgment of the art piece is subjective and everyone defines beauty in their own way. It could also be that the person who won the auction feels that the painting encompasses many pleasant feelings which he can value at that price. I bet if we were to interview the person who purchased it, his/her explanation may not make sense to us because after all, we do not share the same sentiments about that painting, and that just adds up to the beauty of the arts. And we probably don't have that much money, for all we know, we wouldn't know what to use it for
ReplyDeleteto be honest i have no idea why this painting is expensive because it does not appeal to me.I agree that because Picasso is a famous artist most people would buy his painting at a high price because the believe that every work of art by a great artist should be of high value regardless of its beauty.
ReplyDeletei think that the quote " beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder" which informs us of the subjectivity of art, really does help to bring the whole point about just how subjective beauty also is. i noticed from my class last week Wednesday that the different groups choosing the top 5 paintings chose totally different paintings altogether. does this not then imply that we all saw different things which influenced our judgment of just how beautiful the painting is? also, with the example of murder etc, i think that those things are just not considered beautiful because they've been accepted world-wide against it. There are still individuals in this world that do not find things like torture as a big deal (twisted as it may sound). But in the area of the arts, concerning paintings, where everything is completely subjective, where everything depends on the thoughts or emotions one's paintings evoke, a judgment of how beautiful a painting is is highly subjective and is influenced by ones feelings or thoughts towards the painting. on the other hand though, it can also be said that most people feel similar emotions in certain situations. this may be why the whole world may really rate certain paintings so highly, and others quite lowly.
ReplyDeleteI think subjectivity obviously plays a role in what is perceived by an individual to be beautiful, especially in the world of art. Different people like different things and as such different things appeal to different people on different levels. This,in reality, is probably the main reason that we have found it difficult to establish a set criteria for all works of art (if you remember the lesson in which we had to decide on the paintings that e liked best from the selection provided us). We all have different reasons for reacting to works of art in the way that we do. However,there are a set collection of principles that guide artists in their work and thus this set of principles that are accepted and applied in the world of art should be the basis for us to determine whether a work of art is good or bad. It shopuld be based solely on its artistic merit in terms of the application of principles like balance and rhythm and the manipulation of certain elements like line quality and quality. (@ skiski the medium has nothing and should have nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether a work of art is good, great, bad or horrible!!) I say these principles should be used to judge what is GOOD and not what someone LIKES because the two do not necessarily need to overlap. After all, it is very possible for someone to hate or be completely offended by a piece that is good or even a masterpiece based on its artistic merit.
ReplyDeletei would get economical about this, and state that a Picasso, is a veblen good. here, i dont think beauty is the main factor here. it's the "snob value" of the good that allows it to sell for such a ridiculous price. an appreciation of the fine arts, and of monumental movements in the arts is considered a sign of culture.A picasso will sell for as much as it does, because the possession of such a painting is indicative of some social and intellectual status on the part of the buyer. thus. Picasso's "beautiful" or perhaps simply disturbing painting, is not at all worth the amount placed on it. but it is the chance to achieve recognition, to invest in something for which one can make greater dividends on in future. that prompts such high and speedy bids. it is not the painting in itself, or the artist himself, that determines the value we place on art, but also what the name and painting represent to individuals and to society.
ReplyDeleteIn as much as the beauty of the painting influenced its purchase, I believe that in this case, the overly excessive amount of money paid(in my opinion)was based on the fact that this was a work of art created by Pablo Picasso, a venerated painter. This calls into question the concept of a value judgment,which quite simply, refers to an individual's opinion - the judgment of the worth of something based on personal view. If the value of the painting placed emphasis on solely its beauty, then rationally, the individual could just as well have made do with a copy of the work.
ReplyDeleteThis leads me to the conclusion that the originality of the work, and in essence, the painter played a far more important role in the buyer's estimation of its value.
I think we discussed this in my TOK class.
ReplyDeletePersonally, i thought "value" of art cannot be absolutely defined. But just the fact that Picasso is the one who drew the piece.
If we could use one of the worst art pieces that we saw during TOK class and say that it was made by Picasso, will it be able to have such "million" value?
OF COURSE NOT!!! ARTISTS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO BUY ART PIECES ARE NOT STUPID!!
Mr Kidane said that Picasso wouldn't have been a famous artist if his art pieces weren't beautiful or wonderful enough. Of course that is true. There is perhaps a "criteria" used by artists. Or if artists are able to draw pieces that have special characteristics that other artists cannot do, then it could be considered as "beautiful".
However, there are also limits. Every art piece cannot be repeated never and ever again. Starting from the medium used, the time it was drawn, the direction of the strokes of the pencil work or paint work. Does this make the every art piece special? Well, it seems as if NO.
Also, what if picasso, after being the best artist, produces a piece which is from an omniscient view, not valuable and rather has no difference from the pieces considered as the "worst pieces"?
Will it still be considered as a valuable piece?
Perhaps, Yes. And that could a limit of grading art pieces.
So, in conclusion, I believe that an art piece being valued at 106.5 million dollars may not be wrong. But who knows, it may be an ordinary piece that we are all making a huge mistake!!
By the way.. value could be added to art pieces according to the painter or age. OR??
i think this painting was sold for so much because of the painter Picasso and the prestige of the painter. The painter is known as a great painter so in as much as the painting is beautiful the amount of money paid for it was due to the artist. Also i will agree with aboutime in saying that the painting has "snob value" attached to it thus the sale of the painting at a high price. The painting is more of a Veblen Good so there is some prestige attached to the painting so owning the painting represents a high class status. I would therefore like to say that the painting was sold at this high price because of Picasso. He is known as as renowned artist there is some snob value attached to his paintings.
ReplyDeleteInteresting reading, I was mortified by the price of the painting Nu au Plateau de Sculpteur (Nude, Green Leaves and Bust). Although, Picasso is a renowned artist , I do not think such a painting is worth 106.5 million dollars , this is a ridiculous amount of money to pay for such a painting.The colors are dull and have no meaning.As I type, I am still wondering what possessed the buyer to spend so much money on it.Obviously, the decision was taken from a subjective angle.However, I am trying to decided whether it was done either because of the 'beauty' of the painting or whether it was bought as an act of ostentation.If that is the case, the morals of the buyer must be questioned .On the other hand, when such paintings initiate uproar amongst the public there is always an individual that brings it upon themselves to vouch for it.I do understand that Picasso is a spectacular painter however is this piece really one of his best ? Is it truly worth 106.5 million dollars ?
ReplyDeleteHowever, paintings do evoke different emotions within individuals it is subjective hence peoples tastes and opinions must be respected!
well l was amazed that such a dull painting which not only l saw is worth all that . . . . yet it jus a potrayal of some meaning if it has a meaning at all . . . .l think we as individuals tend to judge works of art by the artist and not the art that is done. because it was the famous pablo picaso and probably the person was a picasso lover they paid all that . . .this applies to artistic things like music when certain individuals hear that lil wayne (as in mordern times ) has a new albulm although it may conatain not boring but not pleasant songs which they will witness will go ahed and pay all that because of the individual who is attached to this which is why firms use dominant images for advertisement knowing that no matter what some individuals would buy that. because even communicating a particular message should not be that expensive because there is no new phenomenon . . . .but just a common idea expressed differently so really does not deserve to cost all that much
ReplyDeleteYasmin made an interesting comparison (it may have been on the Perelman thread) between the price paid for the Picasso piece and the prize offered for the solution to a Millenium problem.
ReplyDeleteThis is speculative, and I hope you will be able to develop this, but a mathematical proof, once provided, enters the public domain. Anyone who is sufficiently interested can look at it, admire it, apply it to whatever is relevant. A painting such as Picasso's is unique and the owner is entitled to withhold it from the public domain by hanging it in his house, for instance. Isn't that why its "price" is so much higher? On the other hand, we can make reproductions of the painting - just as well as otherwise none of us would have seen it or been able to comment on it, so what is it about the original that makes it so much more valuable than any copy? To what extent do these factors apply in other art forms? Is Picasso's painting equivalent in this respect to an original manuscript written by, say, Chopin, or Ibsen. With literature, wasn't the original made in order to be copied? With music, is it really the manuscript we are interested in, or the music that is generated from it? Or are we getting carried away in our search for pristine aesthetic values? Perhaps the buyer of Picasso just thought he was making a sound investment. The judgement was economic, not aesthetic...? These are knotty issues...
well l agree with Dz toni beak that artists and individuals who buy paintings ain't stupid and like the rest of us thought it is not stupid to conveys certain ideas through an art piece and so is it not stupid to buy a painting not because its nice but because you are a fan of the artist .
ReplyDeletehowever not every one is subjective about things this could have been an objective thing because the art was beautiful but since beauty is subjective we would not see it is a wonderful painting worth all that but someone sees it differently and to them it is a wonderful painting
I think that the art first of all was very intriguing and I found that the colours blended just right.But because Picasso is kown to be a very experienced artist in the field of art and he produces good masterpieces ,then the value of the painting does not truly reflect the master piece. I think the art was purchased at a higher price since he is famous and is not reflective of the true work done by the artist.
ReplyDeleteIn reponding to Mr.Kidane's question i think that Picasso would not gain fame without being a great artist. This is because art is given alot of prestige and for someone to realy excell in the field of art he has to be producing master pieces which will invoke certain message the artist is tring to portray alongside emotions that will make people comment wonderfully about the piece of art. with this he/she will get fame and people will buy more of the painting since the fame already will come to people's mind before the real painting.
i would like to ask a question. For instance I am an artist and paint something which is considered as a masterpiece and my painting is put alongside Picasso's who in this instance did not do a good job which piece of art would you take?
As for me i think that what makes a piece of art wonderful is first the message conveyed by the artist, the beauty through use of colours that blend and lastly if the figure is realistic.
All artists consciously or otherwise reflect a part of their being in their works. If you actually look hard enough all artists have a distinct feature running through their works - take Picasso and his rigid, distinct shapes as an example. Thus in one way or another, the works of all great artists are relatively... great. Though means and style of the execution of this common feature may vary vastly, most great artists manage to play their paintings out well to make a master piece. In this sense, I believe that the worth of an artist and that of his painting are not at all mutually exclusive. This is the reason all Picasso’s works have been of a specific range of worth: Picasso is probably worth that much and his worth has induced the worth of his paintings or probably vice versa. Ohene.
ReplyDeleteAll artists consciously or otherwise reflect a part of their being in their works. If you actually look hard enough all artists have a distinct feature running through their works - take Picasso and his rigid, distinct shapes as an example. Thus in one way or another, the works of all great artists are relatively... great. Though means and style of the execution of this common feature may vary vastly, most great artists manage to play their paintings out well to make a master piece. In this sense, I believe that the worth of an artist and that of his painting are not at all mutually exclusive. This is the reason all Picasso’s works have been of a specific range of worth: Picasso is probably worth that much and his worth has induced the worth of his paintings or probably vice versa. Ohene.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the comment s, I came to realize that it is not about beauty that the painting was drawn(after studying the picture myself, I thought maybe well this picture deserves the price) Lets think about it, I this day and century who has a whole day to paint like the famous Picasso? Someone also mentioned that the person who bought this art had his eyes opened and knew good art from bad art. Looking at the paintings and the art that we have today most of it is a replicate of someone else’s work, it might not be exact but it’s the same idea. Today we have art on computers and people tend to take the short way round of making it big in art. Picasso spent his entire life drawing and just because this one painting took him only a day to paint means nothing to the buyer and to all his fans.
ReplyDeleteThe author of a piece of art is likely to have more influence than the his piece of art. Therefore, i am not surprised at the cost of the masterpiece that was made by Picasso. Some of us have stated that his artwork wasn't good enough and didn't deserve to cost that much. Well, i kinda agree to that, but also, considering what Tz Toni Baek, someone would not have bought that painting for 106.5 million dollars for nothing. Though it's a renowned artist who made the painting, which added value to the masterpiece, the buyer also had their own reasons for buying that piece of work for that much money. This re-accentuates the idea of subjectivity in arts, and how it drives people to make all sorts of comments about a piece of artwork. Most importantly, these things buyers look out for could include the message in conveys, which is actually their prime focus when buying some masterpieces. It is once again, not surprising that Picasso's work was bought for 106.5 million US Dollars. Beauty, they say, truly lies in the eyes of the beholder, and the fact that i don't see something to be beautiful doesn't mean you also should see it as ugly.
ReplyDeletei was a bit ambivalent about this one. first i thought it was a ridiculous amount for a piece of art, mostly because i think art is biased. However it all depends on the persons experiences and how they relate to the artwork. i also believe that it is possible to pay that amount for something you can relate to or that invokes some kind of emotion in you, or even connects you with whatever message is conveyed. Perhaps the person who bought it was reminded of his mistress.perhaps.
ReplyDeleteIt is very typical of people to purchase a car because it iss by Jaguar or a CD because it is by Stevie Wonder or an operating system because it is by Windows or even toothpaste because it is Colgate. Honestly, if Picasso used a brush to sprinkle black paint on a large white canvas it would still sell billions. This isn't just about art, big names always sell regardless of quality because it is only natural for humans to be biased towards those. Okay now back to art, I agree that Leonardo DaVinci, Picasso etc have produced some of the greatest art in history but obviously wen they started out their greatness was determined by the technicalities of their works (colour, structure etc) but now we have reached a point where it is like we don't expect any less from them. Nothing they can do is wrong and I think this is very sad, not entirely our fault because we have been made to believe that, but still sad. If we stuck to technicalities we could find works by everyday artists which could probably measure up or even be better than these great names and then maybe some ordinary John would be selling paintings for billions of dollars.
ReplyDeleteI personally don’t think this painting should be worth that much. Humans are just fond on over rating and generalising certain things. Though some of Picasso’s paintings are very beautiful, I find this one very unattractive and believe that is sold for that much because it was drawn by him. Picasso’s other drawings have earned him a respected name which automatically sets a base price to all his work. This is very similar to cars where an Audi A6 and VW Passat, constructed by the same company are given different prestigious attributes due to the badges placed on the cars. These paintings, like the cars have the same fundamental basis but are rated differently due to the different due to the artist who drew them.
ReplyDeletelooking at what everyone has said in my own opinion i think that it's the originality of the painting that might determine it's price and again i agree with those that say the artist too can determine the price. it is just like music, a lot of people do not buy the new artist music because of their lack of knowledge in the artist but for those that they know even thought the song is not nice , just because the song is by the so called famous artist i will buy the CD at whatever price because of my knowledge of the artist and his/her previous song. just a random statement
ReplyDelete"am a victim of that so i would understand"
Linda
I read somewhere a few years ago that the three most lucrative types of crime are those that involve guns, drugs, and art. An interesting trinity!
ReplyDeleteSo another way of approaching the question might be to ask why each of these three types of item are valued so much as to generate profitable criminal activity...
it is outright opulence that drives people to make such high, unnecessary purchases. to belong to a certain class, you must drive a car that costs atleast $150,000...its becoming common lately. In Ghana there's a growing occurence of people buying cars for functions or for "church"...the Sunday car, which is kept in the garage and sparked to warm the engine each morning.
ReplyDeleteA painting is not as complex as a vehicle in terms of ergonomics and aesthetics, but unlike most vehicles it does not depreciate in value as the years go bye....a Painting is timeless and cannot be reproduced in its exactness by anyone other than the original artist...nowadays new mercedes manufacturers produce same models for people who wish to own them by following the procedure which remains exactly as it is with the company...picasso high prices are understandable to some extent...i believe...
...because there can only be one of the same painting...
ReplyDeleteI believe that the outrageously high amount of money paid for this painting was influenced to a little extent by the beauty/ of the painting. However, the price was to a large extent, due to the fact that the art piece was a work of Picasso, an irrefutable exceptional painter. To me, if the painting was bought at such a high price, then it would be only rational (to me) that whoever the buyer was, would just buy an exact replica of the painting. After all, they would look exactly the same and posses the same beauty.
ReplyDeleteSince this was not what occurred, I am tempted to draw the conclusion that the painting was sold (or bought) at such a high price essentially because it was Picasso’s work. The painter influenced the buyer’s estimation of the painting’s value far more than the appeal of the painting itself.
I am even tempted to think that if a piece of art from the Museum of Bad Art was labeled as a painting of a prolific painter such as Picasso or Michelalengo or Da Vinci or Claude Monet, the painting would be bought at a very high price!
Sanaa Poku
The painting was sold for that amount because it was done by a famous artist Pablo Picasso and not by any common artist. Art works produced by Pablo Picasso, in my opinion are not most often appealing to our senses but had to cost so much due to the fame of the artist. I also find this ridiculous because how can a painting like that be completed in one day and sell for $106.5million whilst others spend days, weeks and probably months to produce a single masterpiece which will not sell for even half of a 100 million dollars. On the other hand, if this painting was done by some other artist other than Picasso or the few famous artists (the work of art carrying the same connotation), such a painting or art piece might not have met the criteria for entering the Museum of Bad Arts. I however think that this bidder bought the painting because of the name Pablo Picasso being attached to it or just because he wanted to be famous for spending that much money on a painting.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that that is a rather large sum to pay for a piece of artwork. That said however, I know most artists would agree that there is no possible way to separate their individual from the piece of work they created. After all Picasso's painting is an outward expression of his inner self. Thus, to say the painting was only valuable just because he was Picasso, I think would not be accurate. The worth of the artist and the art are one and the same.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue to consider is art is an investment. Its value only increases after time so of course it would be a worthy object of criminals.
Picasso.....wow. I'll definitely want to be THE ONE with one of Picasso's paintings hanging from my wall!!! CERTAINLY we can attribute people's enthusiasm for the painting to the mere fact that the painting was by the great Pablo Picasso. It's the exact same situation with modern day branding of goods. In fashion, we always see one star or another on the red carpet in an Armani dress or suit. But then again not all his designs are masterpieces. However, I believe that regardless, be it an overwhelming gown or a potato sack most people will be proud to be in an Armani dress!
ReplyDeleteThe point I am trying to make is that everyone loves to possess something that bears the name of a legend and such is the case of this painting. Personally I believe that this painting is a very good art piece but then again the mere fact that it was by Pablo Picasso may have been a large contributing factor to the high price at which it was purchased. I believe that it was worth the price because Picasso has created some masterpieces that have established him as one of the world’s greatest artists known like Tori rightfully said. That’s to say that the extents of the people’s appreciation of his works are not completely undeserved!
we human beings set a certain standard for something according to our past experience. Picasso is one of my favorite painter. i have a good impression for his paintings so, obviously i will conclude that the painting worth that money.although the painting is bad we force our selfs to see beyond the painting and give our interpretation to accept that amount of money is worth for this piece of painting.
ReplyDeletesamuel M
Personally, with regards to the artist having influence on the painting I partially disagree to that. Most of these renounced paintings were discovered after several years their producers when their when their producers dead. Unless maybe…. who knows, they had some connections whiles living, so these people are still bargaining for their works to gain recognitions. It could also mean that there was something wonderful they did for some officials just like Picasso who was asked to draw the situation in Germany or Spain during WW2. This was when he produced the “……..” which is also classified as a good art
ReplyDeleteThe painting cost that much because it was by Picasso. If a painting has been kept in a museum for a very long time is proved to be a forgery after about 30 years; it’s thrown away as if it never existed. This means that art depends on the artists’ image to promote it. The reason it was valued at such a price was because it is a painting by Picasso. It is what economists will refer to as a Veblen or ostentatious good. From this we will realize that art is valued due to its artists and not its meaning. An artist’s work is not only judged by the artist it is also judged by if it’s done intentionally or unintentionally. For instance we talked about an artwork in class which was unintentional by the artist but he told the museum it was intentional, critics came up with all ideas about the meaning till he said it was unintentional and the painting was treated like crap. So it is the artist that matters and not the quality of the painting.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is a different combination of factors that come together to determine the value of a piece of art. The monetary value of a work of art for me does not necessarily determine how good it is. Because the fact that there is a limited number could affect its price; and the idea of the competitive nature of an auction could also influence how high the selling price would go. I believe a piece of art should be judged independent of its price. With reference to the news article, the fact is though there may be different factors that influenced the reason why it was sold at that price, everybody wants to own a Picasso painting because of the good reputation he has previously established independent of any monetary value attached to his work. For the works Picasso to have been considered good, certain criteria which i believe range from aesthetics to how the artist is able convey his intentions had to be met; all independent of how much it would cost on the market. I do agree to some extent that the artist's reputation contributes to the ratings people give to the piece of art. If you walk in an art gallery and you saw a work of art with my name on it you would probably just walk past, however if it was Van Gogh you would pause at least just to look at it little longer. I do not disagree with this attitude towards rating works of art because i believe that for an artist to build that kind of reputation, a lot of hard work must have gone into it. Appreciating art still remains a subjective thing but i believe that there is a point where all the subjectivity converges, where there is an agreement or else nobody will be out there buying someone's artwork at that price...that money could start off an anti-malaria campaign in Africa!!!!
ReplyDeleteAm not a fun of art and I do agree with some people that the painting was sold that much because of Picasso who is a famous artiste. But the status of the artiste should not contribute to the value of an art piece. Probably if it was another artiste, I do think it would have sold as high as that. I don’t think the value of this master piece is the piece itself but most of it is from that fact that it was made by Picasso. I also think money does not necessarily determine the beauty or how good the art piece is; there are other factors that determine this. For example, if Picasso’s painting was judged independent of his status, it would have sold lower than that.
ReplyDeleteSTEVEN JJUMBA
• In TOK class we spoke at length on how art pieces are valued and evaluated. W e had four critical approaches on how artwork is evaluated but looking at the artwork in question and the amount it was able to fetch; it looks like evaluation of this artwork was very much dependent on the artist himself- Pablo Picasso! Picasso has made a name for himself from some his earlier paintings and so it is not shocking that someone would spend millions on his painting, all because there is a certain prestige that comes with owning a Picasso painting! So even if the painting is not up to standard, the money being is in exchange for the prestige one is going to acquire.
ReplyDeleteFor anything related to famous icons, more emphasis is placed on the man than the object itself, be it the person's possession or work of art. People would spend thousands of dollars on Michael Jackson's mere socks. There is an obvious difference between the value that would be placed on a piece where I simply drew a line and that which would be placed on the same composition done by, say, Piet Mondrian. Once someone has been recognized as a highly talented artist, we associate almost any work he produces with genius or great value, though this may take some time to be agreed on by many. For great artists who have passed away, their works are worth even more, because the number of pieces made by them are now limited. If there is only one edition/version of a painting, that one has more value than two identical pieces, even though they were all made by the same famous artist. This is related, in a way, to originality as discussed in TOK class - genuine, rare art pieces are treasured more. We can't really settle for even a very good replica.
ReplyDeleteI think skill and creativity are basically what should determine the value of an artistic work.
To be honest, sometimes I find it ridiculous how much money some paintings make, and it's just because of who made them. We may lie to ourselves occasionally that our appreciation of artwork is based on skill rather than identity, but I think it always plays a role. Look at it realistically - no matter how good an artist I may be, that line I draw would never get the same amount of criticism and acclaim that the one drawn by Mondrian would.
Andrea
Most times people place so much value on art works, paintings, that that should be valued that much. Like this painting, I really don’t understand why it should be worth what it is. Well, Picasso might have painted other good works and made a name in art, but this should not blindfold people to putting so much value to his works which are not attractive or lack the quality. As an artist am not moved by his works. His works are unique and so this makes it easier for them to be weighed very heavily by certain people in society.
ReplyDeletepaul c bwalya
Though there may be arguments that the high demand for, and therefore the high price of the Picasso art piece is due to name behind, I beg to differ. Picasso gained his fame in the world of art through pure merit and this is most evident in all his works. His employment of tools and artistic features such as cubism, balance, abstract and the likes Pablo Picasso is able to genuinely appeal to the non-existent artistic senses of the lay-man and proves himself a true master of the art. I do not find it surprising that his works blaze excellence like a wild fire in the Harmattan. To credit it all to the name is to discredit the beauty of the chef d'oeuvre.
ReplyDeleteWell, i think in a great piece of art, there'll definately be a great man(or woman) behind it. Therefore, a lot of the time, people base their preferences of a piece of artwork on the person who put it all together. Society really appreciates the originality of the art piece and so a well-renouned artist's creativity would always be appreciated, accepted and sold for a lot of money. Like Andrea said, people would be attracted more to items or works of a celebrated artist and would pay so much for it even if it is not nice.
ReplyDeleteLet's take a literary work for instance. Someone like Shakepeare is a very well known playrite and his works are studies worldwide. I read somewhere that one of his books is beig sold for almost 40,000 pounds. This is of so much worth because it is from a very well respected man.
Therefore, i think people are willing to pay so much on an artwork from a very famous man- especially Picasso.
Ruth
Emotions play a very crucial role in visual arts. Having done visual arts at IGCSE level, and seeing many several different artworks by several artists, I got to understand that beauty in art does not sorely rely on how well the artist has been able to render form and structure to bring the artwork to life, but also the emotions matter to a large extent. However, not should the artwork evoke some emotions from the person but also the person should like the artist.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Picasso, he's work was able to be sold at a $106.5 million auction because he's works valued highly and perceived to be great works even though some of his works might not be that good! After all, he is one of the greatest artists the world has ever produced! For this reason, his work might been able to reach such an abnormal auction due to the way people perceive him.
This art work is actually the most beautiful one .However I cannot tell weather it is actually worth that chunk of money because I have no idea how art works are valued in monitory terms, though I have a rough idea about what kinds of arts works are masterpieces.
ReplyDeleteThe major prerequisite for collecting art is a desire for the object. While other contexts may enrich the story behind. I think that the art works are “goods of ostentation”, the demand for them increases the more expensive they become, because people want to be seen having prestigious property that others cannot afford. In addition to this there is also social and cultural pressures, for example art works that are mentioned in history book are more valued than others that are drawn by ordinary individuals, though the subject matter is the same.
However the chief reason why a large amount of money is paid for Picasso’s works is that because he has a unique style of drawing which is called cubism. In addition Picasso has drawn many other pictures which are of high value, thus setting a standard for the following works. We should not also forget that the owner gets admiration for it.
The price tag for Picasso’s art brand power; the manner in which brands alone, such as Coca-Cola, are worth so much. The artistic value of Picasso’s work at face value may not actually merit the price tag. However, the star power of the painter, the renowned Picasso, who possibly pioneered some form of art, lends a lot of value to the art work. For all we know, that art work could be easily remade and even improved upon in contemporary times. For example, some ancient mathematicians still regarded as geniuses for discovering mathematical theorems and disciplines that is common knowledge for high schoolers. However, their ‘genius’ status, is not necessarily because of the discipline in itself, but their pioneering work.
ReplyDeleteHowever, owning the very own original handiwork of Picasso is priceless. And I’m sure demand for Picasso’s work by art enthusiasts must be really high, so it is understandable that the price tag is so high. I also think that this illustrates the influence of authority figures on the public. Authorities on art regard Picasso’s artwork highly possibly because it may have represented a new generation of art. So, naturally, the general public has been conditioned into thinking of Picasso’s art as high rate.
This is in response to Mr. Kitching's post (May 9, 2010 12:56 PM). I'm of the view that for the most part, our species has evolved to perceive certain things as beautiful, as you said.
ReplyDeleteExample: as far as I know, in modelling the thin, petite, waif figure has been more preferable to anything else - whether medium-sized or plus-sized - for many years. That is, until now, when people are trying to embrace other body types and discourage the model stereotype (especially because people go to the extreme of anorexia and bulimia just to fit into the stereotype. Not good.)
What I think is that for humans, we like balance and normality. Large people aren't as common as thin people, and at least from what I've seen, human beings don't like "different". An amputated person isn't something we see everywhere. We mostly see people with all their limbs and body parts intact. And comparing the two kinds of people - most people would say the un-amputated person is better looking. In paintings, as well, symmetry (related to balance, as I mentioned) can make an art piece better-looking in many people's eyes (note: 'CAN' and not 'ALWAYS'). If there's an orange in the middle of one half of the canvas, and the same in the other half, we'll probably like it. There's balance, it doesn't confuse us. It "makes sense". But take a piece where there's a full orange on a surface, and another one in mid-air, in maybe the right-hand corner. I think the probability of a person liking it goes down a bit. (I'm not saying people won't like it, though.)
We generally like to see the same things, unless whatever breaks the status quo becomes more common and more popular, I suppose.
But why do we like what is common, what is normal? I don't really think any human can answer that but...feel free to try... :)
Andrea
*Point of correction - large people aren't as common as other kinds of people (as far as I know).
ReplyDeleteAndrea