Basquiat Sells for $110.5 Million at Auction
-
- Art Enthusiast
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:42 am
Pretty sure that painting is what Bane would look like without the mask.
- earlgreytoast
- Art Expert
- Posts: 9376
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:14 pm
o4phish20o wrote:That's what you do when you don't want to pay to insure it yourself. Put the responsibility on someone else.canuck wrote:You gotta give the man props. Drops 9 figures on a piece of art and says he going to loan it out to galleries so it can be seen by many. Dude!
lol uhhh, no. When you spend 110 mill on something, I don't think insurance costs are the reason you do ANYTHING.
Codeblue wrote: I’m sorry for everything.
and hope that someone falls into it like over in France a few years back and claim the insurance.canuck wrote:You gotta give the man props. Drops 9 figures on a piece of art and says he going to loan it out to galleries so it can be seen by many. Dude!
Me too. Yes, you are correct it's not a completely probable claim that a third grader's abstract art is better, but it is a warranted claim that someone could mistake a third grader's work as professional abstract art.gorkie wrote:I love it when people compare Basquiat's work to that of any random third grader.
I just do.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1669
In a nut shell, research has found that people can discern professional abstract art from amateur abstract art created by children, chimps, and elephants at a rate of approximately 66% of the time. Please remember that chance identification would be at 50% and the participants where only 16% better than chance.
This researcher compared that rate of 66% to the rate at which Olympic judges prefer the gold medalist to the silver medalist in figure skating, the preference for gold medalist was 73%. This data suggests professional and amateur abstract painters (children, chimps, and elephants) are more similar than gold and silver medalists.
Not the perfect study and follow-up, but still enough evidence to suggest people can get duped by amateur abstract painters.
seriously people watch that video i posted. bowie breaks it down for ya.
jkw3000 - Nobody ever really wins in this hobby.
Olly - I'm a hack asshole unable to provide you with what you want.
Gonzo's Mom- And some of you are the demons!
Olly - I'm a hack asshole unable to provide you with what you want.
Gonzo's Mom- And some of you are the demons!
And Cy Twombly's work looks like a second grader made it.recycler wrote:Me too. Yes, you are correct it's not a completely probable claim that a third grader's abstract art is better, but it is a warranted claim that someone could mistake a third grader's work as professional abstract art.gorkie wrote:I love it when people compare Basquiat's work to that of any random third grader.
I just do.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1669
In a nut shell, research has found that people can discern professional abstract art from amateur abstract art created by children, chimps, and elephants at a rate of approximately 66% of the time. Please remember that chance identification would be at 50% and the participants where only 16% better than chance.
This researcher compared that rate of 66% to the rate at which Olympic judges prefer the gold medalist to the silver medalist in figure skating, the preference for gold medalist was 73%. This data suggests professional and amateur abstract painters (children, chimps, and elephants) are more similar than gold and silver medalists.
Not the perfect study and follow-up, but still enough evidence to suggest people can get duped by amateur abstract painters.
By the way, I just might add this to my sig...
Experiment shows that art students prefer abstract art to monkey art in about two-third of the cases.
Last edited by gorkie on Fri May 19, 2017 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. - Thoreau
@gorkieartdogma on Instagram
@gorkieartdogma on Instagram
- ToolFanFromWayBack
- Art Expert
- Posts: 5810
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:05 am
- Location: Houston, TX
Wait until someone tries to fix it or some clumsy kid rips ito4phish20o wrote:That's what you do when you don't want to pay to insure it yourself. Put the responsibility on someone else.canuck wrote:You gotta give the man props. Drops 9 figures on a piece of art and says he going to loan it out to galleries so it can be seen by many. Dude!
But yeah... bad ass to let the public have the chance to see it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... r-painting
I need more. Nothing seems to satisfy. I don't want it. I just need it. To feel, to breathe, to know I'm alive. - MJK
“People incapable of guilt usually have a good time.” - Rust Cohle
Presenting Codeblue's 30000th post -
“People incapable of guilt usually have a good time.” - Rust Cohle
Presenting Codeblue's 30000th post -
Codeblue wrote:bump
-
- Art Expert
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:00 am
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
While the art could be ruined as mentioned above, the cost to insure a $110m painting (guy is only 41) for let's say 50 years, would probably get close to costing more than the art itself did. Not to mention theft risk. I'd rather leave that on someone else than worriying about my house getting robbed or the same thing happening by my own kids.ToolFanFromWayBack wrote:Wait until someone tries to fix it or some clumsy kid rips ito4phish20o wrote:That's what you do when you don't want to pay to insure it yourself. Put the responsibility on someone else.canuck wrote:You gotta give the man props. Drops 9 figures on a piece of art and says he going to loan it out to galleries so it can be seen by many. Dude!
But yeah... bad ass to let the public have the chance to see it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... r-painting
If anything goes wrong while on loan, you'd get paid the value back. Would sure allow me to sleep better at night.
Amazing work to own..... lucky dude
- 63schoeffling
- Art Expert
- Posts: 8253
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:52 am
PLUSH wrote:But will it flip?
Waffle time!
I think that his plans are to loan them out to various institutions so that the masses can see them after the art being tucked away for the last 30 years. Presumably he'll be charging those institutions a fee....o4phish20o wrote:While the art could be ruined as mentioned above, the cost to insure a $110m painting (guy is only 41) for let's say 50 years, would probably get close to costing more than the art itself did. Not to mention theft risk. I'd rather leave that on someone else than worriying about my house getting robbed or the same thing happening by my own kids.ToolFanFromWayBack wrote:Wait until someone tries to fix it or some clumsy kid rips ito4phish20o wrote:That's what you do when you don't want to pay to insure it yourself. Put the responsibility on someone else.canuck wrote:You gotta give the man props. Drops 9 figures on a piece of art and says he going to loan it out to galleries so it can be seen by many. Dude!
But yeah... bad ass to let the public have the chance to see it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ ... r-painting
If anything goes wrong while on loan, you'd get paid the value back. Would sure allow me to sleep better at night.
Amazing work to own..... lucky dude