The eye of the beholder and all that but could a cherished culturalist advise me what it is about this painting that makes it the most ‘remarkable’ ever? IMHO it is technically mediocre – more nightschool than old master and owes more to Roswell-type mythology than psychic revelations. But $120 million? Munch on that, all you aficionados!
Boadicea's Chariot 
Munch ado about nothing
Don’t ask me – I think anyone who can afford to pay that much for a painting (any painting) should pay 100% purchase tax.
I would gladly take the money. I could paint something like that. It’s munch less impressive than a Boticelli.
Boadicea: I will only agree with that sentiment if the money goes to support my own rather less remarkable art collection.
Is the guy with a hat on being sick? I am continuously sick of this painting. It is I suppose a very famous painting as there is nothing quite like its power to turn the stomach what with its swirling lines, warning red clouds and contorted face. Maybe the Nordic slant gave it a particular ‘hit’ in modern art, I wouldn’t hang it in a mad house. But I might use it as a Circus poster.
PG: well put.
I guess it is a bit like anything that people value, whether it be a diamond – largely indistinguishable from a piece of glass , gold – not much different to brass, a house – it is the address that counts, a very good bottle of wine – not that different to a mediocre bottle, a race horse – chances of it winning or breeding a winner are slim, even a trophy spouse – the less said about that the better! People have the money and they want those things that nobody else can afford. To all practical purposes, there is not a lot of difference between a Ford Mondeo and a Bughatti Veyron. But while millions can afford the former, only a very few can afford the latter and that is what makes it so special to them.
If you had made $10 billion, what would you do with it?
As for the purchase tax, I am not sure that is a fair approach. As long as these tycoons pay their taxes like everybody else, and I certainly accept that most do not, then they should not be selectively penalised for their spending habits. That $120 million will be spent on more art, diamonds, gold, wine, cars, houses etc and will provide jobs and income for others, including the Inland Revenue.
I know you’re right, Sipu – Grrr! The ‘value’ of any rare commodity is only what someone is prepared to pay to own it – whether it is a diamond, gold, house, wine, horse, painting – or a ‘trophy spouse’! The problem that I have is that there seems to me to be little skill in producing a diamond, gold, etc…and certainly little skill in producing this painting.
I’m not sure that I would agree that there is not much difference between a Ford Mondeo and a Bughatti – but then I’m not really into cars!
At this moment, I’m looking to upgrade my sewing machine. I’ve done the research, and the one I want is $12,000. Top of the range, it’s the most expensive domestic machine in Oz. I can tell the difference between it and other sewing machines – and, while I think it is horrendously expensive and over-priced, I can appreciate that a great deal of ‘skill’ has been put into its production – a great deal more than was put into the $120 million dollar painting.
I can understand and appreciate that people are prepared to pay for something that has taken a great deal of effort and skill to produce. I have no sympathy with people who spend money simply to own a ‘name’… Picasso, Munch, Chanel, or even Nike 🙂
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the picture sold is not even a “one off” Munsch ran off about half a dozen of them and this is known as the “purple scream”. So for your 120 big you get one of six, I guess the set would be more than a billion (and the last one would be bugger to get your hands on).
There is a line in one of my favourite Del Amitri choons, Nothing Ever Happens.
“While American businessmen snap up Van Goughs for the price of a hospital wing.”
There is a certain obscenity to this kind of investment at a time when we are supposedly all in the financial smelly stuff.
I will wager a pound to a pinch of pooh that the anonymous purchaser has avoided paying tax on his transaction via some loophole or other.
Hi LW, I think the special thing about this particular version is that there is a poem attached to it, that describes Munsch’s feelings about the stark colours that he saw at the time.
I find the whole thing totally obscene.
This world appears to become more dysfunctional and dystopic by the day. Enough to make anyone scream, unfortunately not in such ‘glorious technicolour’! Positively puke making. One wonders what is wrong with the Scandinavians.
As a matter of curiosity, Bo, if you can’t tell the difference between the sewing machines, why do you want the most expensive model? Never heard you mention much sewing before. I would have thought that this is a computerised freeform model, haven’t ever heard of you being into machine embroidery?
Come on, guys. The name’s MUNCH! 🙂 And akshully I don’t think Scandiwegia was such a bad place in 1895.
Christina. I think you must have misread me – I can tell the difference between the machine I’d like and the others, and it isn’t only just what it will do but the way it has been made. This is a computerised embroidery machine and somewhat more advanced than my great-grandmother’s treadle that I learnt to sew on as a child!
Some years ago, my daughter bought an embroidery machine, and I decided to get one too. Normally, I would buy the next model up from what I think I need – whether it’s a computer or a washing machine. I didn’t do that with the sewing machine, and I really regret it…
I’ve always been into sewing – and had a pretty expensive model before I came to Oz – left it behind for daughter number 2. I can’t ‘justify’ spending that much money on a machine other than the fact that I can’t take it with me when I go and I might as well spend it on something I enjoy doing. It will give me more pleasure for far longer than my proposed trip to India! 🙂
“While American businessmen snap up Van Goughs for the price of a hospital wing.”
That is one of my favourite lines, too; the irony of juxtaposing obscenely expensive art works with the bare bones of life and death. I feel like a traitor to leftism when I defend art against such arguments, but defend it I will, because – no disrespect intended – there is a very fine line between utilitarianism and philistinism.
Bleuebelle
I have no problem with defending art – the world would be a very sad place without it. I can (almost!) defend the sort of art this picture represents – although I wouldn’t put it in a cupboard in my house!
What I find obscene is the ‘price tag’ attached to paintings and the like. It isn’t the art that’s being purchased – only the name of the artist.
I do, as well – find the price obscene, I mean. I have never resolved the conflicting ideals – art for art’s sake versus poverty, I suppose. On the one hand, the huge price should be roundly condemned – almost has shades of Versailles in the age of austerity. But on the other, well; a thing of beauty is a joy forever. I think it is mesmerising. The magnetic swirls, the sense of paranoia and oppression, perhaps.
It was quite grim, actually. During this time there was still mass migration from Scandinavia to the Upper Plains, both the Canadian and US. That is one reason why Minnesota and North Dakota have pronounced Scandinavian populations that, at times, still speak the old languages.
Christopher, I was making a ‘relative’ observation. I’m sure life for the majority was still ‘nasty, brutish and short’ to quote Hobbes, but was it worse than everywhere else, including the Upper Plains?
I am going to take issue with the idea that the amount of money spent on the picture is obscene.
Think of it this way Munch painted a picture. It did not take much time, or cost a great deal in terms of material. But because of its particular appeal, a huge value has been attached to it. But where is the money going to?
The seller, apparently the son of a friend of Munch, is described as a businessman, Petter Olsen. In fact he is a scion of the Olsen shipping family. “Petter Olsen sold the painting to raise funds to build a museum in Hvitsten Norway, where Munch once owned property and near where Olsen has an estate, to house the rest of his father’s collection.”
So, here is a piece of work, the material value of which is almost worthless, that is being used to create jobs, directly, through building etc, and indirectly through tourism. For each transaction, whether it is the purchase of bricks and mortar, or an entry ticket to the museum, taxes, both VAT and income, will be paid. It is the role of the government to build hospitals and schools. The money for these comes from taxes.
The buyer, has effectively given $120 million to the state of Norway. Except that a chunk of that will go to the auction house which will pay for jobs and therefore more taxes, and therefore more schools and hospitals and aid to the starving children of Somalia.
Here in Cape Town, one gets to meet a range of very interesting people (and many very dull people). The city is one that attracts visitors from all walks of life and all levels of income from right around the world. It just so happened, that a few years ago I actually met a real live $ billionaire. He was a self-made Scot. I asked him what his passions were apart from his business, which he had in fact sold by then. He told me that he believed education was fundamental to the wealth and well-being of a nation. This being the case, he had attempted to give a chunk of cash to his local county/region to build an educational facility. But because he belonged to the wrong political party, the money was refused by the council. So, he spent it south of the border instead, not far from where Ferret lives. He does in fact give considerable amounts of money away. The wealthy often do. But he also has his toys, some of which are not cheap. Take his yacht for example. $40 million for the right to ponce around the Cote d’Azur plus another $4 million annual running costs is, one might argue, hardly money judiciously spent. But that money goes on jobs, and taxes. He also owns a Veyron! Jeremy Clarkson and co make a lot of money for the BBC just talking about Veyrons. Top Gear is sold all around the world.
Wealthy people often have a particular talent, which is that they are good at making money. Better at it than the government is. If a man has made $100 million, he is quite likely to double it to 200m over a period of time investing it in businesses and concerns that create real jobs and generate taxes. But if the government were to take half of it away, he will only be able to double 50m back to 100m. Meanwhile, the government will have wasted much of the other 50m on non jobs and bogus schemes to promote Gujarati in the Home Counties.
Sipu
In this case you are talking about what this particular vendor is going to do with the money he receives from the sale of this particular painting. What a Jolly Good Fellow! And I mean that in all sincerity 🙂
As for the wealthy buying ‘toys’ – I see no difference between what they spend on Veyrons and yachts and the council tenant buying a good quality Hi Fi – or, indeed, my purchase of an expensive sewing machine. We may all be buying a ‘name’ but it is a name that is contributing to the economy in all the ways that you suggest. Good Luck to the lot of them (and me!) – everyone is entitled to own a toy that pleases them…
What I find obscene is that someone is willing to spend $120 million dollars for what, even you agree is in effect pretty worthless materially speaking. Were they to donate this ‘masterpiece’ to a public museum for all and sundry to view then I might award them my Jolly Good Fellow medal… but, they aren’t.
The rich may often give considerable sums of money away – but not all of them do. So forgive me if I cannot give all of the super-rich my ‘Jolly Good Fellow Medal’.
I forgive you Boadicea. 🙂
I think there are good and bad people right across the economic spectrum. Though, to quote a conversation (that never actually took place) between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway:
SF, ‘The rich are different to you and me.’
EH, ‘Yes, and they have more money.’
I just want to add that while the picture is of little value, materially speaking, the same is true of any number of creative and historical works, including Shakespeare’s ‘First Folio’ for example, or dare I say, some of those parchments you pore over during your research. It is the ideas written or painted on them that have the value. Or do they? Billions, trillions even, are spent in various ways on the arts every year. But, reading or watching a production of Hamlet, won’t put food on the table.
I am not sure that we know that the buyer will do with the art, but even if he locks it away, I believe he has done something good for the art world. He has effectively raised the value of art generally. (Remember good old Alan Bond and Van Gogh’s Sunflowers. Or was it Irises? He and Robert Holmes a Court entered a bidding frenzy in the mid 80s. Sadly for Bond, he bid $54million, he won and then went bust.) That means more people will spread their money around supporting more artists who will create new ideas. Surely the creation and appreciation of art, in whatever form, is one of the signs of a civilized society. If not, we may as well revert to subsistence.
Never mind, I can see we will not agree. I have even managed to bore myself. You must be whimpering. 🙂
Hmm, prefer the subsistence!
Frankly I’d burn the bloody thing, absolutely hideous, plain ugly and I am so very tired of seeing this angst ridden piece of crap.
Think I’d rather have those bloody sunflowers.
Or even better, a row of sunflowers for the price of a packet of seeds!
All of a dollar.99!
CO, the price of seeds! They extort more than $3 a packet here!
It was rather more unpleasant in Scandinavia, especially in the countryside. Roughly 1/2 of Norway’s population and 1/3 of Sweden’s population moved out. The Plains may have been wild but they could have land and grow enough food to feed themselves, even some more to sell and trade.
The vast prices now paid for Van Gogh or Munch did nothing to support the artists while they were alive, Sipu. I don’t know about Munch, but was Van Gogh not one of those penniless artists who would exchange a picture for a meal?
Janus re seeds. For years I used ludicrously expensive seeds from a ‘highly reputable’ utterly PC outfit down in Oregon, until they screwed up one order utterly, completely and didn’t jump high enough upon complaint.
I was so utterly pissed off and late with sowing I went into our local agricultural co-op and bought a handful of cheap and nasty garish packets of veg seeds for $1.99 per packet. The best germination rate I have had in years, excellent stock and very tasty veg. Needless to say I never bothered to return to the pricey ones.
Considering I germinate on hot pads at controlled temperatures in the greenhouse, I have found some of the most expensive seeds are the very worse.
Chris agree with you, a lot of them out west here too. I think they got tired of eating fish and seaweed! At least in the plains they could get a grain crop in the summer.
Spousal unit is half Swedish stock, does a very good manic depressive on occasions!
Pretentious and overrated crap, IMHO. The painting, that is – not the comments. 🙂
OZ