Child's painting sells for $86.9m

[Hermit]

See how long you'll last trying to read this review of Rothko's Untitled, 1961. Just on the offchance you won't quite get to the end, I'll help you out by quoting the salient part of the last paragraph.

This season's Contemporary Art sale at Sotheby's New York offers a selection of extraordinary paintings and sculptures. The three centerpieces of the sale include: Mark Rothko's Untitled from 1961, a radiantly beautiful and monumental masterpiece from the artist's oeuvre...

[hadespussercats]

Peter Singer would argue that if you spend £70 million on a work of art when for the same price you could, for example, literally save the lives of thousands of starving people, you are implicitly saying, "this paint and canvas are more important than a persons life. My enjoyment of it is more important than a persons life". And Peter Singer would be right.

Fuck off. You can say the same damn thing about the house you live in, the plates you eat off, the car you drive, and most of the clothes you wear-- not to mention any TV, movies, or time spent farting around on internet forums.

[Warren Dew]

Peter Singer would argue that if you spend £70 million on a work of art when for the same price you could, for example, literally save the lives of thousands of starving people, you are implicitly saying, "this paint and canvas are more important than a persons life. My enjoyment of it is more important than a persons life". And Peter Singer would be right.

Fuck off. You can say the same damn thing about the house you live in, the plates you eat off, the car you drive, and most of the clothes you wear-- not to mention any TV, movies, or time spent farting around on internet forums.

Well, that would be true if his house or car, etc., cost £70 million. And there are plenty of people who complain about people who spend that amount of money on their house or car - as well as people who complain about anyone having that amount of money to start with.

Personally, I'm okay with people spending their money on what they want, but then I'm one of those evil libertarians.

[Hermit]

Peter Singer would argue that if you spend £70 million on a work of art when for the same price you could, for example, literally save the lives of thousands of starving people, you are implicitly saying, "this paint and canvas are more important than a persons life. My enjoyment of it is more important than a persons life". And Peter Singer would be right.

Fuck off. You can say the same damn thing about the house you live in, the plates you eat off, the car you drive, and most of the clothes you wear-- not to mention any TV, movies, or time spent farting around on internet forums.

Yes, same principle applies, but I object to the difference in scale. We fritter a lot of money away on things for our own comfort that to others appear like unnecessary luxuries. How much does it amount to in a lifetime? A million dollars, perhaps? Compare that amount to spending 86.9 million on a single transaction involving seven square metres of painted canvas. It's kind of obscene, don't you think?

And while this particular event established a new record for late expressionist painting, this obscenity happens all the time. On the day Christie's auctioned that Mark Rothko, the auctioneer's total turnover for the day was $388.5 million. A week earlier Sotheby's auctioned an Edvard Munch to the tune of $120 million. Last time a Ferrari P4 was auctioned, the highest bidder shelled out $20 million. The list of indulgences on that scale is endless.

[hackenslash]

And as I mentioned on RatSkep, until you see it in real life, your opinion is worthless. We should take it as seriously as someone who says "that food tastes terrible, the chef is a fake, and it's not worth the price" - after only seeing a picture of the food on the Internet.

I actually have a soft spot for Rothko. I've seen the Seagram Murals. Feckin' awesome.

[Warren Dew]

But mainly I like it because it puzzles me: it's so different from the direction Rothko was to take later - and I couldn't see the connection. I still can't. And I found that odd, because I'd just been looking at an exhibition of Mondrian, and the chronological development of his work is obvious (and fascinating). It's similar with Bacon, and indeed with Rembrandt. But not with Rothko, and that was a new discovery for me. So I like that there's something going on here I don't completely understand. That intrigues me.

This seems inconsistent with your earlier claim that the artist doesn't matter.

For what it's worth, I liked the image in the original post, and I doubt seeing it in the original would add much for me. The title was misleading, though, since it seems the painting was done by someone in his 50s.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Personally, I'm okay with people spending their money on what they want, but then I'm one of those evil libertarians.

Hear, hear!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, same principle applies, but I object to the difference in scale. We fritter a lot of money away on things for our own comfort that to others appear like unnecessary luxuries. How much does it amount to in a lifetime? A million dollars, perhaps? Compare that amount to spending 86.9 million on a single transaction involving seven square metres of painted canvas. It's kind of obscene, don't you think?

And while this particular event established a new record for late expressionist painting, this obscenity happens all the time. On the day Christie's auctioned that Mark Rothko, the auctioneer's total turnover for the day was $388.5 million. A week earlier Sotheby's auctioned an Edvard Munch to the tune of $120 million. Last time a Ferrari P4 was auctioned, the highest bidder shelled out $20 million. The list of indulgences on that scale is endless.

Well, I wouldn't share that same set of priorities, but this is why it is called private property. The insinuation that someone ought to feel guilty for spending that sort of money on what they want strikes me as more than a little presumptuous, not to mention an clear example of excluded-middle. How do you know they haven't already donated millions to noble causes?

[Hermit]

Yes, same principle applies, but I object to the difference in scale. We fritter a lot of money away on things for our own comfort that to others appear like unnecessary luxuries. How much does it amount to in a lifetime? A million dollars, perhaps? Compare that amount to spending 86.9 million on a single transaction involving seven square metres of painted canvas. It's kind of obscene, don't you think?

And while this particular event established a new record for late expressionist painting, this obscenity happens all the time. On the day Christie's auctioned that Mark Rothko, the auctioneer's total turnover for the day was $388.5 million. A week earlier Sotheby's auctioned an Edvard Munch to the tune of $120 million. Last time a Ferrari P4 was auctioned, the highest bidder shelled out $20 million. The list of indulgences on that scale is endless.

Well, I wouldn't share that same set of priorities, but this is why it is called private property.

Seems we are on the way to another tangent. I regard myself as a liberal humanist with a socialist inclination and therefore utterly despise libertarian dogma, the notions that the individual gets what he/she deserves, be it good or bad, and associated concepts such as entitlement, blame and the status of private property, but that tangent is perhaps a topic worth a separate thread. Apologies for bringing it up here.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not a problem. I reject completely the socialist ideology that an individual's time, property, or concerns should be the subject of group approval. Don't hurt anyone else, and we're cool.

[Clinton Huxley]

Peter Singer would argue that if you spend £70 million on a work of art when for the same price you could, for example, literally save the lives of thousands of starving people, you are implicitly saying, "this paint and canvas are more important than a persons life. My enjoyment of it is more important than a persons life". And Peter Singer would be right.

Fuck off. You can say the same damn thing about the house you live in, the plates you eat off, the car you drive, and most of the clothes you wear-- not to mention any TV, movies, or time spent farting around on internet forums.

Indeed you could. Any of those things are luxuries. If you have $5 for a latte in the morning, you are wasting money. You could make yourself a coffee at home for buttons. You have spare cash. And in the case of the person who bought this paint, they had $70 million burning a hole in their pocket. And they thought, best way I can spend this fortune is on some paint.

To my mind, there is something ethically broken in the kind of person who would fritter away cash on such rubbish.

[hackenslash]

The interesting thing here is that Rothko would have agreed completely.

[Seabass]

Peter Singer would argue that if you spend £70 million on a work of art when for the same price you could, for example, literally save the lives of thousands of starving people, you are implicitly saying, "this paint and canvas are more important than a persons life. My enjoyment of it is more important than a persons life". And Peter Singer would be right.

Fuck off. You can say the same damn thing about the house you live in, the plates you eat off, the car you drive, and most of the clothes you wear-- not to mention any TV, movies, or time spent farting around on internet forums.

Indeed you could. Any of those things are luxuries. If you have $5 for a latte in the morning, you are wasting money. You could make yourself a coffee at home for buttons. You have spare cash. And in the case of the person who bought this paint, they had $70 million burning a hole in their pocket. And they thought, best way I can spend this fortune is on some paint.

To my mind, there is something ethically broken in the kind of person who would fritter away cash on such rubbish.

So where's the cut-off line? 50 million? 25? 10? 5? 1 million?

How much can someone spend on a painting without being considered "ethically broken"?



What if you were to learn that the buyer of this painting has given say, $500 million to charity. Would you still consider her to be "ethically broken"?

[Clinton Huxley]

Peter Singer would argue that if you spend £70 million on a work of art when for the same price you could, for example, literally save the lives of thousands of starving people, you are implicitly saying, "this paint and canvas are more important than a persons life. My enjoyment of it is more important than a persons life". And Peter Singer would be right.

Fuck off. You can say the same damn thing about the house you live in, the plates you eat off, the car you drive, and most of the clothes you wear-- not to mention any TV, movies, or time spent farting around on internet forums.

Indeed you could. Any of those things are luxuries. If you have $5 for a latte in the morning, you are wasting money. You could make yourself a coffee at home for buttons. You have spare cash. And in the case of the person who bought this paint, they had $70 million burning a hole in their pocket. And they thought, best way I can spend this fortune is on some paint.

To my mind, there is something ethically broken in the kind of person who would fritter away cash on such rubbish.

So where's the cut-off line? 50 million? 25? 10? 5? 1 million?

How much can someone spend on a painting without being considered "ethically broken"?



What if you were to learn that the buyer of this painting has given say, $500 million to charity. Would you still consider her to be "ethically broken"?

I would say they could have given $570 million to charity.

[Seabass]

Peter Singer would argue that if you spend £70 million on a work of art when for the same price you could, for example, literally save the lives of thousands of starving people, you are implicitly saying, "this paint and canvas are more important than a persons life. My enjoyment of it is more important than a persons life". And Peter Singer would be right.

Fuck off. You can say the same damn thing about the house you live in, the plates you eat off, the car you drive, and most of the clothes you wear-- not to mention any TV, movies, or time spent farting around on internet forums.

Indeed you could. Any of those things are luxuries. If you have $5 for a latte in the morning, you are wasting money. You could make yourself a coffee at home for buttons. You have spare cash. And in the case of the person who bought this paint, they had $70 million burning a hole in their pocket. And they thought, best way I can spend this fortune is on some paint.

To my mind, there is something ethically broken in the kind of person who would fritter away cash on such rubbish.

So where's the cut-off line? 50 million? 25? 10? 5? 1 million?

How much can someone spend on a painting without being considered "ethically broken"?



What if you were to learn that the buyer of this painting has given say, $500 million to charity. Would you still consider her to be "ethically broken"?

I would say they could have given $570 million to charity.

Well that's cute.

So how much can someone spend on a painting without being considered ethically broken?

And if the buyer of the painting has given massive amounts of cash to good charitable causes, is she ethically broken?