Yeah...I'd pay $4.3 Million for this.....

[R154]

Originally posted by RY213


A quick google shows a 1961 Ferrari 250gt Spider which sold for 5.7 million pounds. My 2008 WRX is probably just as fast if not faster, has more options and features and is built better. Would I rather have the WRX? Fuck no! The Ferrari is a classic, it is automobile art and it is timeless.
Its the same with art, there is a huge difference between a Rothko painting and having some ACAD student throw some paint on a canvass. The choices of color, the brush strokes and the composition all add to the aesthetic value of a painting. There is a reason Monet, Davinci, Rueben etc are called masters. Just because you dont have the eye for it, dont dismiss it as garbage.

This was my point. Thanks man.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by C_Dave45
What the hell is wrong with people?

$4.3 million dollars for THIS??!!!!!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/u-s--13...213521798.html

I'm actually looking for a print of this for the office at work. I saw it on Yahoo and for some reason, I love it.

Anyone know where I can get one?

[Mar]

Originally posted by RY213
A quick google shows a 1961 Ferrari 250gt Spider which sold for 5.7 million pounds.

They had that car on Top Gear last season. Jeremy wasn't allowed to drive it because they couldn't afford the insurance.

[max_boost]

The Origins of Pleasure

[Chantastic]

The weird part is it almost looks like a Mark Rothko/color field painting. That being said, it is so...perfect. It's divided right across the center line, and those strips of grass and road are almost parallel with the water. While some of you say you could take the exact same photo, I bet half of you couldn't.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I could take the exact same photo, nor am I'm not saying I like it at all, in fact I find it pretty boring. But anything to do with landscape I am generally not a fan of, it's simply just not a subject manner I am interested in.

Would I spend 4 mill on any piece of art? No way, because I simply don't have that kind of money. Why people are bothered by what people spend money on amuses is me. It's not your money, it's theirs. If you've got a problem with how people spend money on art, then you hate the system, not art.

Some of my friends think I'm crazy for spending so much cash on modifying my car, but too me it's worth it (till the chasis rusted out haha). I could say the same of them buying a $700 Coach bag, it's something I will never understand myself but I respect their decision, because it's NOT MY MONEY.

edit: I should mention that this is coming from a ACAD grad.

[max_boost]

I'm glad I don't have the *eye* to appreciate art. I also don't care much for sports memorabilia either. But there's definitely something to the origins of pleasure because the history of it means everything.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by gretz
Art is worth whatever someone is willing to pay

This. I have no idea who the artist was who did this, but if they didn't have a name for themselves already, nobody would have paid that amount for the picture.

[nich148_9]

Originally posted by Chantastic
The weird part is it almost looks like a Mark Rothko/color field painting. That being said, it is so...perfect. It's divided right across the center line, and those strips of grass and road are almost parallel with the water. While some of you say you could take the exact same photo, I bet half of you couldn't.

I think this is what's so incredible about it. It's almost an abstract work, but looking closely, it becomes very literal and representative. Other factors may include that it's huge (140 inches wide), and very clean.

[Zewind]

4.3 million, pffftt pocket change :P

[powerslave]

Where's Zoidberg when you need him?

"One art please!"