This painting just sold for $46.5 million

[Major Nikon]

[Brother Buzz]

1. It's worth what someone is willing to pay for it

What's the story behind it?

[Major Nikon]

2. Good drugs, I reckon

[CTyankee]

21. While that may be true, whether it is or isn't art is not up to you...

it is decided by a community consisting of artists, art historians, museum directors and curators, collectors, and art critics who know the values in modern art and have a well developed appreciation of what goes into a Rothko and what its value is. But it requires an educated viewer, for sure.

[Brother Buzz]

27. Ah, a Rothko (most everything I know of art, I've learned from you)

Status, Class and public perception are part of the equation, too

[CTyankee]

30. I don't think those are drivers of genius. However, it is a point that has been argued

for hundreds of years, going back to the question of why Florence was the flashpoint of the Renaissance. I am a fervent believer in art education starting very young in all schools, but with more funding for those who are teaching art in the schools of poor communities that struggle in poverty.

The availability of art to the general public is a major value I hold dear.

[Skittles]

36. and idiocy

[Brother Buzz]

39. Well, there's that

Actually, that painting would look grand in certain office reception areas, but I'd have to hire you to kick ass at any outfit idiotic enough to have a $46.5 million art budget.

[valerief]

3. Rothko? Ain't life nutty?

[LisaL]

7. Couldn't be any more nutty if it tried.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. It's upside down......n/t

[petronius]

5. I can't quite tell - are there five horses in that painting,

or is it just the four?

[LisaL]

9. It has three stripes.

Zero horses.

[rug]

6. Putin wants it.

[TeeYiYi]

12. Maybe that's who bought it. ..nt

TYY

[LisaL]

8. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

$46.5 million worth of stripes? Wow.

[hay rick]

10. If you think you could have done that...

you obviously don't understand GENIUS!!!

[Major Nikon]

13. I'm thinking George Zimmerman could have done that with house paint

[CTyankee]

19. Actually, Jackson Pollack painted with house paint...

which he would fling onto his canvas which he lay flat on the floor. It is called "action" or "gestural" painting. He liked the effect he got with house paint...

[Major Nikon]

20. I suppose it beats plopping paint eggs out of one's vagina

[CTyankee]

22. hmm, interesting comment...I suppose

[Major Nikon]

23. ...

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/apr/22/artist-eggs-vagina-paintings-performance-art-milo-moire

[CTyankee]

25. well, now, it seems that "artworld" has rendered its judgment, doesn't it?

[underahedgerow]

41. I miss Pollack, haven't seen a piece of his up close and personal in a long time.. His works

are mesmerizing. Thanks for inspiring me to pay a visit to the Maeght Foundation... An incredible collection in Vence if you are ever in the South of France.

Kandinsky is another of my all time favorites. There are some pieces in the Tate that I just get lost in.

[LisaL]

17. Yes, I think I could have done that.

For an extra million or two, I could even throw in an extra stripe.

[DFW]

11. Seems like a lot of money for a used Ukranian flag n/t

[CTyankee]

26. well, you might have heard of another artist who liked to paint flags...

This is in MoMA.

[malthaussen]

14. You may be assured the art world takes this very seriously...

"Not intended to be ironic." Well, that's one way to look at it.

-- Mal

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. Anyone have the phone numbers for the losing bidders?

I have some time this afternoon.

[alphafemale]

16. A class of preschoolers.

A study in color my soft ass.

And this is coming from someone that actually likes Pollacks work.

[CTyankee]

18. If you like Pollack you wouldn't necessarily appreciate Rothko...

color field and gestural painting do not necessarily dance together. Color was what fascinated Rothko (he was inspired by Matisse's "Red Room&quot . The intensity of color seemed to seize Rothko and not let him go, perhaps a factor in his alcoholism leading to his death. Rothko "saw" a color and painted it in such intensity that art writer Simon Schama has stated you cannot really turn away from a Rothko painting because “it burns the back of your neck.”

[CTyankee]

24. An educated viewer might want to revisit Simon Schama's 7 part series on Rothko...

&list=PLDwCfLIfw8Sh99LGIYjyu6aut79z2jM0f

One might come away from the experience with a little more appreciation...or maybe not, but at least with an expanded perspective...

[Major Nikon]

28. Or Mad Men: Season 2, Episode 7

[CTyankee]

31. A reference to Rothko's Seagram's Building paintings?

Sorry, I don't watch Mad Men. I am guessing at the reference since the Seagram works were commissioned from Rothko and then famously withdrawn by the artist. That whole episode is also discussed by Schama in the video...

[Major Nikon]

34. One of the executives had one in his office

He and a subordinate briefly discussed it and he admitted he bought it because he anticipated its value doubling over a short period. In other words whatever artistic value it had was irrelevant.

[CTyankee]

37. It sounds to me like Mad Men is a comment on that era which I would expect would have

that attitude about art. Art has always been about an investment of money for some very rich, but shallow, people. As has happened in history, the hype has increased the value almost unbelievably today...

[malthaussen]

32. Liked Citizens

... was somewhat underwhelmed by The Embarrassment of Riches. I thought Citizens was an exceptionally good history of the French Revolution, but it is only incidentally about art.

-- Mal

[CTyankee]

33. Is that a video? Sorry, not familiar with it...

[malthaussen]

35. No, those are two of Schama's books. n/t

[CTyankee]

38. I will look for them...

[F4lconF16]

29. The waste of money bothers me.

That it is valued that highly does not.

[CTyankee]

40. I agree with you. I don't understand this obsession with art but I do understand its history...

it has always been the vanity of the excessively wealthy and not intrinsically about the art itself, except in the case of rich art donors such as Ron Lauder who want to bring art to the masses.

[underahedgerow]

42. Great art in itself makes for an interesting investment... For that kind of money you can hang it on

a wall, benefit from lending it to exhibitions or just keep it locked up and there is virtually no maintenance on it; not like an estate purchased, or a yacht which incur huge, debilitating long term investment and upkeep... and if it's this caliber of an artist it only increases in value.

I still prefer gold and real estate for investment purposes; I can wear gold and dig holes in the gardens and redecorate the real estate!