PICASSO GOES FOR 106 MILLION

Painting is a bit shit.

  On 5/5/2010 at 5:36 PM, chassis said:

Painting is a bit shit.

duhrr derp derp derp duhrrrr

  On 5/5/2010 at 5:24 PM, Glass Plate said:

  On 5/5/2010 at 4:10 PM, patternoverlap said:

Do they just put the money in Picasso's grave so he can enjoy it?

 

 

It is sad to me that an artist has to be dead to fetch those kinds of prices for his/her paintings.

See Koons, Hirst, etc.

I know who they are smart guy, and to my knowledge none of them have ever gotten 100 million dollars for any of their work.

  On 5/5/2010 at 5:36 PM, chassis said:

Painting is a bit shit.

You don't get it , is not about the painting. Is about a piece of shit wealthy white male , mid-40's hanging the painting in his 14-room mansion's living room and inviting all his rich friends to see his latest acquisition , all about street cred.

  On 5/5/2010 at 5:25 PM, Boxing Day said:

Does this mean the recession is over?

It never started for some people. Like the geezer who bought this.

Yeah all the top end bankers have tons of luxury money.

Picasshole

This might make me wish painting was dead.

It is said the price actually shows the volatile mood of the market.

  On 5/5/2010 at 5:24 AM, Capsaicin said:

  On 5/5/2010 at 5:16 AM, Ricky Downtown said:

is that really how big it is?

I don't think the price of a painting is proportional to its size

it's the other way around dude

  On 5/5/2010 at 5:51 PM, patternoverlap said:

  On 5/5/2010 at 5:24 PM, Glass Plate said:

  On 5/5/2010 at 4:10 PM, patternoverlap said:

Do they just put the money in Picasso's grave so he can enjoy it?

 

 

It is sad to me that an artist has to be dead to fetch those kinds of prices for his/her paintings.

See Koons, Hirst, etc.

 

I know who they are smart guy, and to my knowledge none of them have ever gotten 100 million dollars for any of their work.

Multi-millionaire artist Damien Hirst wildly exceeded expectations on Tuesday with a record-breaking sale of 218 items for 111 million pounds ($198 million), underscoring the resilience of the high-end art market.

was that a joke? Making multi-millions is what Koons and Hirst are basically famous for in the 21st century.

218 items for 198 million comes up to $908,256 each. Where is the piece that either of them sold for 100 million dollars?

I'll buy it at a high price!

  On 5/5/2010 at 7:17 PM, patternoverlap said:

218 items for 198 million comes up to $908,256 each. Where is the piece that either of them sold for 100 million dollars?

Recently, Hirst's 100 million dollar diamond-encrusted skull, was 65 million pounds. (For the love of God)

And the 111 million pounds is all going to the same show, which basically is one art piece made of many smaller pieces.

A whole gallery full of one piece? Why I never. That is cheating.

> 100 million USD when it sold, you lose.

  On 5/5/2010 at 7:35 PM, Glass Plate said:

 

 

> 100 million USD when it sold, you lose.

wow, terrible lol.

Didn't realize you were on his payroll. Tell Mr. Hirst that I like his spin art paintings.

no. 5 1948 by Jackson Pollock is the most expensive painting in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

Lol, money really is abstract. If there's no Rembrandt amongst the most valuable paintings then I really can't take it seriously

I don't think any one said this was the most expensive painting ever?

  On 5/5/2010 at 4:51 AM, lumpenprol said:

I can't see the picture which is even better.

 

Think of how many video games you could make with 106 million!

almost pooped myself haha

  On 5/5/2010 at 1:05 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 5/5/2010 at 12:43 PM, kaini said:

  On 5/5/2010 at 4:51 AM, lumpenprol said:

Think of how many mspaint penises you could make with 106 million!

 

no kidding, i think this was pretty much picasso's version of mspaint anyway. Looks quite lazy.

lol, just lol.

  On 5/5/2010 at 1:10 PM, the anonymous forumite said:

Funny that probably the most beautiful thing on earth (creativity/art) is always treated, in its best forms, as luxury goods. Kind of depressing if you ask me.

yea :(

  On 5/5/2010 at 9:29 PM, gaarg said:

Lol, money really is abstract. If there's no Rembrandt amongst the most valuable paintings then I really can't take it seriously

there's more to art than realism!

  On 5/5/2010 at 10:14 PM, bigs said:

  On 5/5/2010 at 9:29 PM, gaarg said:

Lol, money really is abstract. If there's no Rembrandt amongst the most valuable paintings then I really can't take it seriously

there's more to art than realism!

No, no NOOOOOOOOO!!!!