old paintings
hash...@bvu.edu
Old paintings are sold by rich people or big companies at a price. I
wonder why old painting, such as Gogh's, Renoir's, Picasso's
paintings, are sold at extremely high price. When I hear that the
person who bought one of the old paintings at a high price is a
Japanese guy or a Japanese company, I feel bad and I doubt that
Japanese think that they can buy everything in money. Mr. Saito bought
two paintings, van Gogh's and Renoir's paintings, at about 160 million
dollars in 1990. Do those paintings really have a value of 160 million?
I think It depends on person to decide how much valuable the painting
is.
Old paintings are more valuable than modern paintings? Although
old paintings are sold at higher prices than modern paintings,
after famous artists in our age are died, will their paintings' prices
be going up in the future? Even if their paintings were sold
after their deaths, they themselves could not get the money.
One of the articles of "Art in America" is discussing about "the
mortality of art". After reading the article, I wondered if art
should be conserved for posterity, or not. Art works are sold and
they become someone's or company's own properties. Art works are lost
and destroyed by someone or some events such as war, fire, and so on.
When mr. Saito who purchased van Gogh's and Renoir's paintings was
died, the paintings were supposed to be fired with his body because of
his wish. Those pictures were his own properties, so nobody would not
be able to reject his plan. However, if art should be conserved
for posterity and people who love the paintings, those pictures should
not be fired.
Rie Hashiba
kajoj...@aol.com
Short answer:
A painting has little relation to Art when it becomes a
commodity/investment/ego trip. It's promotion as a rarity and/or antique
determines it's value.
.............Karen Jacobs.................................
http://members.aol.com/kajojacobs/index.htm
apelle
Well,
Just a few words about your saying that old paintings are more expensive than recent
ones: as far as I experienced it over the last ten years, I have noticed that, generally
speaking, 19th.c. and 20th.c. fine pictures are far more expensive than 18th.c.and
17th.c. pictures! Just have a look at Sotheby's and Christie's auction results... And I
do not even quote abstract pictures dedicated to the millions (dollars speaking).
It has always been an amazing thing to me, but it is just the way it is. Probably a
matter of tastes... and fashion.
;-)
Charles Eicher
> When mr. Saito who purchased van Gogh's and Renoir's paintings was
> died, the paintings were supposed to be fired with his body because of
> his wish. Those pictures were his own properties, so nobody would not
> be able to reject his plan. However, if art should be conserved
> for posterity and people who love the paintings, those pictures should
> not be fired.
Just to make the statement, that was a work of art. Remember, Saito bought
Van Gogh's Irises during the peak of the bubble economy.. And when the
bubble burst, he didn't have enough money to complete the transaction, and
the Getty Museum had to bail him out. In other words, Saito never really
owned the paintings, he never had enough cash to complete the transaction,
all his money evaporated overnight.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Brother Alphabet
hash...@bvu.edu wrote many things in need of translation:
> Old paintings are sold by rich people or big companies at a price.
Hmmmm.
> I wonder why old painting, such as Gogh's, Renoir's, Picasso's
> paintings, are sold at extremely high price.
Me too. I wish they were free and that they were all mine.
> When I hear that the person who bought one of the old paintings
> at a high price is a Japanese guy or a Japanese company,
> I feel bad
Me too. I wish I had bought them instead.
> and I doubt that
> Japanese think that they can buy everything in money.
Well, I don't doubt that since very few people trade in anything else...
It's either money or something worth money...What else can you buy
things with? Certainly not strange art ideals...
> Mr. Saito bought
> two paintings, van Gogh's and Renoir's paintings, at about 160 million
> dollars in 1990. Do those paintings really have a value of 160 million?
They do now.
> I think It depends on person to decide how much valuable the painting
> is.
Of course it does. If you see a candy bar in the store for
300 bucks, will you buy it or will you find it ridiculous that
the candy bar is priced that high, and believe that the candy is
worth far less? On the other hand, if the bar was made of
solid gold would you not buy it if the true value of the
bar was 1000? 300 would be a bargain.
160 million dollars compared to infinity is a small
price to pay. The paintings are priceless, but sellable all the same.
Plus, at least in certain circles, is not Van Gogh one of the
cherished non-native painters in Japan? In Akira Kurosawa's
'Dreams' there is a chilling homage to Van Gogh's works...I read
in a quoted statement from Kurosawa that Van Gogh was a
beloved painter there. Wouldn't that fact alone give the
enormous prices paid some meaning?
> Old paintings are more valuable than modern paintings?
I don't really think this is necessarily true. Some jerk in ArtNews
magazine advertises his work for sale at over 1.5 mil per image.
These images were created in 1995. It's all about what the buyer
is willing to pay. Given the option to buy a Rembrandt for 100 dollars or
a no-name present-day couch-artist's latest vomit for 10000, a buyer
could very well buy the latter to the rembrandt...Although the buyer should
be beaten severely for this hypothetical blasphemy. Spiritual and
financial value are not similar by any means.
> Although old paintings are sold at higher prices than modern paintings,
> after famous artists in our age are died, will their paintings' prices
> be going up in the future?
Depends. When Picasso was ALIVE people did insane things just to
own his work. A man once traded Picasso a huge villa for one painting.
Also, if a group of work never proves to be important, why should it be
valuable just because the painter is dead? But again, value in
a financial sense is another story.
> Even if their paintings were sold
> after their deaths, they themselves could not get the money.
Paintings aren't sold just to give the artist money.
If the artist's estate owns the work, then the estate will get the proceeds
from direct sales of its holdings, but why should the artist get money from
the sale of a painting that has been sold from collection to
collection for centuries? The artist doesnt own it as an object anymore..
Therefore tha artist has no financial claim to it...The artist
retains spiritual ownership, and perhaps, in modern times,
copyright.
> One of the articles of "Art in America" is discussing about "the
> mortality of art". After reading the article, I wondered if art
> should be conserved for posterity, or not.
You think that all our art should decay like our bodies?
Do you believe that the spirit rots in the grave with us?
Is art not spiritual?
So why should art die?
Art-making is all about immortality. It is a legacy we leave
intentionally. Why else paint? The power of art is in its
lifespan. The way it affects memory and common
consciousness.
> Art works are sold and
> they become someone's or company's own properties. Art works are lost
> and destroyed by someone or some events such as war, fire, and so on.
The object is tangible and possessible.
The image is not.
> When mr. Saito who purchased van Gogh's and Renoir's paintings was
> died, the paintings were supposed to be fired with his body because of
> his wish. Those pictures were his own properties, so nobody would not
> be able to reject his plan. However, if art should be conserved
> for posterity and people who love the paintings, those pictures should
> not be fired.
Yes they should. He owned them. He can do with his property as he wishes.
I respect that wish, actually. While I would hate to see the paintings burned,
I can see how he might wish to remove the possibility of greedy relatives
and corporate or educational entities trying to pick apart his estate.
Of course, if he truly loved the art he would have willed the
works to a museum, or better yet, if he truly loved his family and the art
he would have willed that they be sold, and the proceeds be given to
his family.
But none of that matters. The man has the right to destroy the art
just as he would his couch or his clothing or anything else he owned.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think that you are
seeing the two types of 'value' in the wrong places. What does it matter how
much a painting sells for? Is it not the right of the buyer to throw his or her money
around as he or she pleases? The true value of art is not in dollar signs,
as you have stated plainly by the concern in your post.
As long as you maintain that esteem for great artworks, the rest is
trivia. Even if a painting is burned, the memory of its spirit, or the
image, cannot be taken from the collective mind.
Hutto