Van Gogh painting sells for $40m

BBC News ^ | May 3, 2006

[jla]

That painting is an investment.

I understand that could be a reason for one buying it, but that does not negate the fact that this painting is, as are very many works of 'art', worthy of only being sold at the local flea market.

[Republicanprofessor]

Leni,

May your prayers always be answered.

In response to your post #32.

Post #4 is the auctioned L'Arlesienne.

Post #5 is another famous work by the same title.

Post #21 is the Gauguin drawing from which van Gogh worked for post #4.

Forgive me if others have already answered your question. I'm back at the computer after a commute home and I'm catching up. :)

[Republicanprofessor]

I hear somewhere that, yes, that is Dora in post #34 as the toreador. I also remember hearing that Picasso had just dumped her (and thus the spent look) and that his new babe of the moment was the young woman with the torch.

But I would not stake my life on that info. Anyone know better than me?

And, yes, many of the images here do look ahead to Guernica, below. It is a sin to reproduce such a huge painting as a postage stamp. But such is life. One can always search easily for a larger image if necessary.

[Republicanprofessor]

The "orange piece of crap" looks like a bad copy of a di Suvero.

But the cool thing about di Suvero is that you would have a swing or something neat underneath, such as the piece below at the Minneapolis Walker Art Center's sculpture garden.

Oops, when I was looking up a swing by him, I saw your orange piece several times. I guess it is by him; but the forms are more symmetrical and repetitive than in his other pieces.

[MotleyGirl70]

Lookee here woman, at least your monstrosity has some color and a fair amount of symmetry to it.

Yes, I think our orange montrosity beats your rusty monstrosity...and that ain't sayin' much :)

Lurch-butt ugly,...

Lol.

[Fintan]

 

Most in this forum think this is crap. I think it's beyond description. Flame away....

[MotleyGirl70]

di Suvero

Now I know his name and I can Google him to see his other works of art.

[Rembrandt_fan]

Judith cutting off the head of Holfernes has been an almost common motif throughout art history--more recently, Gustav Klimt did one, and so did Edvard Munch (he of 'The Scream'). What's up with that, anyway? Offhand, I can't think of a female artist who became, er, enamored of the subject, even though it would seem to be a tailormade theme for feminists.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Most in this forum think this is crap..."

I think you're selling us short. Most of the people on this thread--the usual suspects on art posts--are keen on the impressionists and post-impressionists. It's when you start talking abstract, non-representational art that the conversation tends to get heated. As for me, I think Mark Rothko, for example, is very nearly godlike when it comes to making objects of lasting beauty and intrinsic meaning.

I spend entirely too much money buying art, but I'd be tempted--if I had such a thing as disposable income--to buy just one drawing by Degas. Just one.

[LIConFem]

"...but that does not negate the fact that this painting is, as are very many works of 'art', worthy of only being sold at the local flea market."

I happen to agree with you on that point, but such things are subjective. And the worth of a thing is set by what people are willing to pay to obtain it. No painting has any intrinsic value.

[theFIRMbss]

>What's up with that, anyway?

I think it's the times . . .
In our world, we get to see
comic book heros

drawn by different guys
(like Miller and Ross). Back then,
it was the Bible.