Edvard Munch's The Scream set a new record at auction yesterday, bringing a winning bid of $119.9 million at Sotheby's in New York. The winning bidder has not been identified and did all of his/her bidding over the phone. By my calculation (based on Sotheby's published auction rates) the sale paid a commission of nearly $14,500,000, bringing to total paid for the painting close to $135 million.
That's a ton of dough for a piece of art. The previous record holder was a Picasso which sold for $106.5 million in 2010. I'm not a big art guy, so I can't say whether it's a good investment or not. But in my experience, everyone knows what they like and owning The Scream (the only one of four copies still in private hands) would be pretty effin cool.
Plus the piece is somewhat emblematic of our times. If you look closely at it, you'll see that the subject of the painting is a recent college graduate, and the shadowy figures in the background are clearly student loan collections agents.
Never ones to let anything to do with big money slide, Occupy Wall Street stationed themselves outside the auction house to protest the sale (naturally). What a bunch of douchebags.
Outside of Sotheby’s, there was excitement of a different kind, as demonstrators protesting the company’s longtime lockout of art handlers waved placards with the image of “The Scream” along with the motto, “Sotheby’s: Bad for Art.” Many in the group — a mix of union members and Occupy Wall Street protesters — even screamed themselves when the Munch went on the block. (Munch’s work was an apt focus for the group, said one protester, Yates McKee: “It exemplifies the ways in which objects of artistic creativity become the exclusive province of the 1 percent.”)
Whatever, dude.
Any way you slice it, this is an ass-ton of money for a painting and I hope the new owner is happy with it. It makes better sense to me than some of the ridiculous figures I see thrown around for Jackson Pollocks and other really abstract pieces that just look like the product of a paint-flinging acid trip (relax, Pollock fans - I realize that's my own artistic ignorance showing but let's face it: Jackson Pollock was no Robert Wyland.)
What say you, monkeys? Is $135 million a good deal for this piece? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more iconic piece of art outside the Mona Lisa. So maybe it is a good deal. More to the point: how nice would it be to have $135 million to drop on a piece of art?
it is demoralizing when the rounding error on such a purchase is multiples of your entire net worth.
Yeah, break down that commission amount. The sale took a total of 12 minutes start to finish. That pencils out to $1.21 million a minute or $73 million an hour. Good work if you can find it.
Incredible to think about parting ways with 135 million for something that you can hang on a wall in one of your homes or private collections (wherever those are held). Whats the motivation? Just because you can? Investment? Both? Obviously, I understand there are a myriad of reasons to buy something like that but especially in an auction setting I can't imagine that it's primarily an investment (granted, Munch isn't making any more iconic pieces).
It's most definitely both an investment and a display of status. I recently went to see Ronald Lauder's German expressionist collection in NYC and he has in his collection a Gustav Klimt that he bought for $135 million. If I was a billionaire, I would buy a painting of that quality too. When you have more money than you know what to do with, and you happen to appreciate art, it's a no brainer.
Plus, if you're an up and coming Asian billionaire, buying a piece of this magnitude is a huge statement.
I'm going to start painting
Won't be worth jack until 100 years after you die...
Hahah, love the Robert Wyland. Right up there with Lisa Frank.
God I hope it was Cohen so that the occupiers have something else to bitch about
uhmmm.....hate to break this to you but it looks like the buyer was ripped off:
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Scream-Posters_i2687914_.htm
[quote=sayandarula]uhmmm.....hate to break this to you but it looks like the buyer was ripped off:
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Scream-Posters_i2687914_.htm[/quote]
Ha! +1
Contemporary art is nothing more than dripping colorful shit on a canvas and randomly swirling it around with a stick. It is literally the most pretentious thing to call it beautiful or meaningful or whatever old rich fucks say these days. it's fucking ugly is what it is. Jackson Pollock is the perfect example. I can paint better with my left foot.
This painting isn't exactly contemporary (so not entirely shit), but 135MM?? GTFO.
Look up Gerhard Richter and tell me if you still think that way. If so, you can't appreciate art
You mean this guy?
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=gerhard+richter&um=1&hl=en&safe=active&sa…
I guess you're right. I just can't appreciate art, because I don't appreciate pouring 5 different paint cans from the top of a canvas and sitting back and watching where the paint settles...
what a pretentious, douchey thing to say. people that say shit like this is why I stay as far away from my school's art department as possible
I had somebody link me to a website the other day of some modern "art" that is completely NSFW... not only would you get fired for looking at it, you'd look like a complete fucking weirdo... but it's hilarious, dunno if I want to post it on here though even with NSFW surrounding the link in all caps
Mona Lisa transaction comp???
There is no better product/investment where "greater fool theory" applies to than artwork...
www.vice.com/read/i-dont-get-art
Possibly NSFW for one picture
That's it?
What is art? Who cares, do what you like.
I'm curious why one would even bother with an auction venue for something like this. A work of art this famous sells itself. Selling a picture isn't rocket science, and the papers seem to have done more actual advertising than the auction house. Considering the sheer volume of media that a sale can be advertised through, why not just go through that route? I'm sure that an anonymous buyer could just as easily contact the seller through another intermediary that's not charging a whopping commission. Am I missing something here?
Not that it's a big deal, but the price of the painting was $107mm...$119mm after the commission.
Practically has to be a billionaire. I was reading an article the other day and some 'expert' says that most serious art collectors wouldn't spend more than 1% of their net worth on a single piece.
Regards
I'm going to start painting - fart painting, because that's what it looks like.
in 100 years, perhaps the original master tapes of Dru Down's "Pimp of the Year" will also fetch $120MM in current dollars. now that was true art.
id imagine the butt munch (pun intended) that bought that will make a similar face when whatever drugs they were on when they bought it wear off
what a waste of money. If you want to blow over 100million for obvious status at least do it like Paul Allen and buy a borderline cruise ship to throw monster celebrity parties on. how on earth can art be worth that much...... unless as many post prior have suggested drugs were involved lol.
naw, buying a cruise ship is tacky and cliche... should be reserved only for russians.
there's something pretty baller about owning some famous-ass paintings that everyone has heard of. like it would be totally boss to have Starry Night or Whistler's Mother hanging on the walls of my bro-cave.
+1 for the Wyland reference. I have to pass one of his galleries every day on my way to work and it always makes me wonder "How big of an art market is there for dolphins jumping into the sunset? There must be more 12 year old girls in the world than I thought."
Gordon Gekko said it best "the illusion (referring to the price of the painting going up), has become real. capitalism at it's finest"
but Munch is clearly a genius for having the foresight to make his subject look at the buyer with mocking terror
OH MY FUCK. apparently "the Scream" is not just one painting... it can refer to any of 5 paintings done by Edvard Munch from 1893-1910:
http://www.wwtdd.com/2012/05/this-piece-of-cardboard-sold-for-120000000/
the one that sold last night for $120M was not even the "good" version from 1893 that we're all familiar with. nope... this one was much crappier version from 1895.
http://cdn.wwtdd.com/wp-content/uploads/2000/08/edvard-munch-the-scream…
From my perspective, The Scream is a wonderful painting. I can't say whether it's worth $119 million dollars or whether Munch deserves to have his painting sell at auction for more money than a Picasso would bring in, but I can say that I am moved when I look at the painting and that it was made with more skill and talent than many in the WSO community are giving him credit for.
The general public is usually impressed by artists who model form well and know how to render. Their appreciation for great art is limited by how much the subject matter of a painting looks like what it's supposed to be. This is equivalent to being excited about a baseball pitcher who throws 95 miles an hour, but has poor control, doesn't change speeds, and whose pitches don't explode into the catcher's glove. This quality of fine rendering, in my opinion, is one of the least important elements of a great work of art. I look at other qualities. What is the composition like? Are the shapes interesting? Am I able to empathize with either the artist or the painting's subject matter?
What type of brushstrokes does the artist use? Does he paint thinly or thickly? Is he more concerned with two dimensional or three dimensional space? As an aside, great art before Impressionism focused more on three dimensional space, even though two dimensional space was considered to be important as well. Since the influence of Japanese art of the 19th Century, American and European art have become more two dimensional. The paintings are flat on purpose. How is this done? One way is by making the background lighter and with more chroma (intensity of color). This pushes the background forward, flattening the space. Another way is by having forms kiss the edge of the canvas...or each other. This heightens our awareness of the shapes in the background. In The Scream, the yellow-orange shape of the background and the simplified bulb-like shape of the head are close enough in color that the picture plane is flattened. Another reason why the yellow-orange shape of the background is propelled forward is because it is surrounded by the blue of the water, its complement. The left hand of the foreground figure has the same wave-like shape as that of the swirling lines to its right (from the viewer's perspective). All these little touches are done intentionally. An untrained artist may think he has the ability to replicate what Munch is doing, or what Jackson Pollack is doing, but s/he can't.
Speaking of Jackson Pollack, he did a lot more than pour paint onto canvas. He saw composition in a new and different way. Instead of finding the focus of a composition and then guiding the viewer's eye from place to place throughout the canvas, Pollack's goal was to have his paintings taken in all at once, with no area of focus. He was not the only painter who strove for this. Chuck Close, whose paintings are representational from a distance and abstract close up, has a similar goal. He paints the head, whereas Pollack is abstract, but the compositional goal is the same.
I'm not saying that everyone in the WSO community should appreciate Edvard Munch or Pollack or anybody else. If someone were inclined to criticize Munch, that would be fine with me. But at least have a sense of what Munch was striving to achieve. And maybe, armed with a new perspective, you'll see qualities in these paintings that may have eluded you for many years.
You know what my problem with your argument is? None of this is verifiable. For all we know, Munch wasn't trying to invoke any of the emotions you're referring to or apply any technique intentionally. He probably just painted something that, at the time, was considered amateur at best, and then 50 years later, some art history major decided the work was important and found ways of justifying it.
People in the art world analyze things and weigh out every detail and history of art not unlike the constant obsession with "which group at which bank did what deal that what PE recruiter wants for what megafund that what bschool wanst for what class to send to what recruiting op for what salary" type of obsession you see here. Sort of.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2012/02/qatar-buys-cezanne-card-playe…
Regards
if you scroll to the bottom, there's a link to a picture of a naked chick on a horse. just letting you know.
Sint sunt earum accusantium a. Officiis odit maiores ut iusto quasi quod eos. Qui rerum et fugit. Illum ipsum corrupti rerum laborum hic officia ipsum.
Ea qui et veniam aut. Et atque qui et provident quo asperiores nihil. Minus doloremque voluptatibus deleniti et porro dignissimos dolores. Harum iusto nulla porro aut amet. Libero molestiae alias non temporibus. Ut amet ut ex corrupti nihil magni laudantium.
Qui quia quia et et et. Possimus et eum nostrum a aspernatur harum ut molestiae. Nesciunt quo odit reiciendis.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Vel recusandae delectus omnis sunt. Temporibus voluptatem perferendis iste optio distinctio id. Inventore velit aut officiis voluptas nobis. Ad at accusantium ea eveniet.