Van Gogh for 71 mil...
Rich Maxson
Vincent van Gogh’s “Portrait of the Artist Without Beard,” which he painted
in an asylum near the end of his life and gave to his mother for her
birthday, sold for more than $71 million at auction Thursday.
The 1889 self-portrait, believed to be the last ever completed by the
troubled artist, brought the second highest price ever paid for a work by
Van Gogh and the third highest price ever achieved at auction. The price was
more than triple the $20 million it was expected to bring.
“It’s an absolutely stunning painting,” said Andree Corroon, a spokeswoman
for Christie’s auction house. “He was very upset that he couldn’t make it
back for (his mother’s) 70th birthday, so he painted this painting to show
her that he was in good health, which he wasn’t. And he shaved his beard off
to make himself look younger.”
Van Gogh’s “Portrait of Dr. Gachet,” is the only work by the artist that has
fetched a greater price. It was sold for $82.5 million by Christie’s in
1990.
Bidding for “Portrait of the Artist Without Beard” began at $14 million and
three bidders were still competing for the work when it reached $39.5
million. Two bidders — both anonymous and on the telephone — drove the price
higher until the final bid was cast.
--
Rich Maxson
Misery Bay Antiques
Dallas, TX & Muncy, PA
Mike Wilcox
Rich Maxson wrote:
It's a shame that a man's talent is seldom recognized until after he's gone,
Sleep well Vincent where ever you are.
JGROUND
>From: Mike Wilcox
>It's a shame that a man's talent is seldom recognized until after he's go=
>ne,
>Sleep well Vincent where ever you are.
>
>
>
>
>
Pssst, Mike, remember to speak in the other ear..., Vinnie's just a tad
sensitive about you know...<grinning from ear to ?>
Joan
Mary
making Louis XVI-style chairs with leather backs and seats decorated
with imitations of two of his paintings? They are going for $4240 and
$5600 a pop (or repop).
Mary
Ronnie McKinley
>It's a shame that a man's talent is seldom recognized until after he's go=
>ne,
>Sleep well Vincent where ever you are.
>
Not so, Van Gogh's talent was recognized and praised by his fellow
contemporaries .. sheer money alone, doesn't not prove someone's talent or
worth. :)
To have recognition and high praise from one's own kind, within one's own life
time, is worth more than all the billion's in American.
Ronnie
===========================================
"No marble, no conventional phrase;
On limestone quarried near the spot
By his command these words are cut:"
===========================================
~ "Under Ben Bulben" ~ {J.B.Y} ~
Ronnie McKinley
SORRY
........ than all the billions in America. :)
Mike Wilcox
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
True money isn't everything, but it would have been nice if Vincent
could have least made a living instead of existing in destitution during
the most productive years of his life. Some would say that his art was
the way it is because of his financial circumstances ,maybe ,but l know
from experience it's hard to be creative when your stomach is empty and
the tools at your disposal are old and worn out. I know many people
today who are very talented artists and tradesmen and yet the don't
receive near the remuneration from their work to support themselves and
to quote a phrase " they suffer for their art ". l don't mean to sound
critical, it's just everytime l hear of an auction result like this l
think of all the artists who went without the basics of life to create
objects that bring the rest of us such joy, l just wish it were
otherwise. But , man l still love this business.
Ronnie McKinley
>Some would say that his art was
>the way it is because of his financial circumstances ,maybe ,but l know
>from experience it's hard to be creative when your stomach is empty and
>the tools at your disposal are old and worn out.
I'm not so sure Mike if this is totally true, his brother very much helped to
his (Vincent's) needs ... and so too, did many of his more successful
contemporaries and supporters. I suspect, dear old Vincent may have spent
money on "other" things to aid his art. >; I sometimes wonder, if he had
indeed all the boxes of colours under the sun at his disposal, and had not to
try and "create" the colours that he only saw in his mind's eye, with what was
merely at hand, what then, would the end result have been, certainly not the
wonderful stuff he left behind .. IMO
> l don't mean to sound
>critical, it's just everytime l hear of an auction result like this
The auction result means squat, these people aren't buying art, they are
buying a myth a corporative investment to hang on the boardroom wall.
> l
>think of all the artists who went without the basics of life to create
>objects that bring the rest of us such joy, l just wish it were
>otherwise.
I have a book on an Irish artist Rodric O'Connor, same period as Van Gogh, in
this book, O'Connor (wealthy man) speaks of a *brief* meeting in Paris with a
strange Dutch artist by the name of Vincent Van Gogh. O'Connor remarks, that
this Van Gogh person who was clearly a self-taught artist but produced (made
is his words) the most sticking work that he has ever seen. It's remarkable
that O'Connor's work (successful in it's day and highly sought today with 10s
of thousands of pounds) after this brief meeting, should shows a big Van Gogh
influence, in both style and in colour ... Van Gogh left his mark, on everyone
he touched ....... stuff the 71 million.
It will never be otherwise, unless we get rid of the greedy evil capitalist
system .. yea I know, pissing against the wind. >;
planosingles
=)
Mike Wilcox wrote in message <3655CAA2...@sympatico.ca>...
Rich Maxson wrote:
It's a shame that a man's talent is seldom recognized until after he's gone,
Rich Maxson
>no mans painting is worth more than 500 homes.
It's barely worth Bill Gate's landscaping service!
--
Rich Maxson
Speak into my Good Ear Antiques
[watch this space]
Tina Sutherland
previous owners of this painting, but does Van Goghs estate get anything when his
paintings are sold? I mean are there "royalties" of any sort in the art world?
Can an artist own the image with out owning the work?
Tina
Ronnie McKinley wrote:
> In rec.antiques Mike Wilcox wrote:
>
> >It's a shame that a man's talent is seldom recognized until after he's go=
> >ne,
> >Sleep well Vincent where ever you are.
> >
>
> Not so, Van Gogh's talent was recognized and praised by his fellow
> contemporaries .. sheer money alone, doesn't not prove someone's talent or
> worth. :)
>
> To have recognition and high praise from one's own kind, within one's own life
> time, is worth more than all the billion's in American.
>
Hollowayd
>
>I was just wondering...I understand that the money from this sale will go to
>the
>previous owners of this painting, but does Van Goghs estate get anything when
>his
>paintings are sold? I mean are there "royalties" of any sort in the art
>world?
>Can an artist own the image with out owning the work?
>
Royalties are generally paid for "published" works. Individual works of art
don't fall into this category. (Thank goodness actually) Once the artwork is
sold the new owner has complete title to the painting. I remember reading an
interview with an artist- Rauschenberg or De Koning-- who was lamenting the
fact that they couldn't afford to buy their own early paintings. Funny eh?
Apparently the early stuff was going for millions and the things they were
producing today weren't bringing nearly that!
David
David Holloway, Bookseller
Tina Sutherland
Hollowayd wrote:
So we have a sort of Catch 22? The artist can't get money unless they sell
their works, but then they can't really reap the benefits that come from the
later sales. No wonder they talk about starving artists!
Tina-who can't draw stick figures.
m10...@abc.se
<den...@mx.serv.net> wrote:
>I was just wondering...I understand that the money from this sale will go to the
>previous owners of this painting, but does Van Goghs estate get anything when his
>paintings are sold? I mean are there "royalties" of any sort in the art world?
>Can an artist own the image with out owning the work?
>Tina
>snipped<
Over here there is a Droit De Suite on f.ex. paintings wich goes
something like this:
"The buyer shall pay to xxxxxxx a fee of 5 percent on the hammer price
in accordance with the Act on Copyright on Literary and Artistic Works
unless the work was created by an author or artist who died before
1926". (In 1996 that was).
This fee that was introduced in 1996 goes to the artist or his/her
relatives until the 70:th year after the artists death.
It applies not only to paintings but also to drawings, sculptures,
textile pictures and artisticly "designed" glass, pottery, silver,
furniture and so on wich is not produced in more than in one peice.
In auction catalouges objects that this fee is applied to is usually
marked with a "d".
This fee is to be payed every time the object is sold, so shops have
to take this fee into calculation when setting prices etc.
Was it something like this you wondered about?
Regards Martin W.
Tina Sutherland
m10...@abc.se wrote:
Yes, thank you. That system seems fair, but I've never heard of it before. Where is
"over here" ? Tina