The Scream....how much ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 03, 2012 3:52 am

A WORLD-FAMOUS painting which heavily influenced popular culture, has fetched a record $119.9million (£74 million) at auction today.

Edvard Munch's The Scream, painted in 1895, was sold at Sotheby's in New York.

Only one question.......Why ?

Post by **spot** » Thu May 03, 2012 3:57 am

It's as much as keeping 141 American service members in Afghanistan for a year costs. Peanuts, or what? It's the sort of loose change the Pentagon wouldn't bother even counting.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu May 03, 2012 4:13 am

Bruv;1392829 wrote: A WORLD-FAMOUS painting which heavily influenced popular culture, has fetched a record $119.9million (£74 million) at auction today.

Edvard Munch's The Scream, painted in 1895, was sold at Sotheby's in New York.

Only one question.......Why ?

Maybe because "things" are valued more highly than people? Well, to qualify, they are when "those in the know" tell us they are.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 03, 2012 4:14 am

Are you saying the Pentagon bought it ?

I heard it was an unknown anonymous buyer.

How did the Pentagon get into this subject ?

Are you able to turn every topic around to your obsessive compulsive disorder ?

My question 'why' was concerning the 'worth' and the 'who' and really the 'why' of paying so much in times of global belt tightening.........but if you want to talk America/Afghanistan.....carry on.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu May 03, 2012 6:59 am

Spots reaction:

Oops, how did Homer get in there?

Post by **spot** » Thu May 03, 2012 7:10 am

Not at all. I was introducing the concept of the value of money where there's a practically infinite supply of the stuff.

Money, in quite a number of circumstances, has no value whatever. Mark Zuckermann the Facebook chap effectively bonfired a thousand million dollars not long ago buying an asset which turned out to be comparatively valueless. Had he paid the entire amount for The Scream instead in an insane bidding war, it would have sold for a thousand million dollars instead of a hundred million dollars and he'd have had something startling to hang on his apartment wall instead of the Athena print of the same painting he bought ten years ago for $15. He'd be better off than he is by one oil painting.

I suspect that when you get super-rich, and you go in for buying a unique object that millions of other people lust after, you're prepared to pay a percentage of your assets to get it. You or I might part with a thousand pounds and be giving the same proportion of our wealth as this anonymous bidder did. The top bid is dictated by how much swill this generation's acquisitive porkers have scooped out of the common trough.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Thu May 03, 2012 7:51 am

spot;1392839 wrote: Not at all. I was introducing the concept of the value of money where there's a practically infinite supply of the stuff.

Money, in quite a number of circumstances, has no value whatever. Mark Zuckermann the Facebook chap effectively bonfired a thousand million dollars not long ago buying an asset which turned out to be comparatively valueless. Had he paid the entire amount for The Scream instead in an insane bidding war, it would have sold for a thousand million dollars instead of a hundred million dollars and he'd have had something startling to hang on his apartment wall instead of the Athena print of the same painting he bought ten years ago for $15. He'd be better off than he is by one oil painting.

I suspect that when you get super-rich, and you go in for buying a unique object that millions of other people lust after, you're prepared to pay a percentage of your assets to get it. You or I might part with a thousand pounds and be giving the same proportion of our wealth as this anonymous bidder did. The top bid is dictated by how much swill this generation's acquisitive porkers have scooped out of the common trough.

Facebook chap's last name is Zuckerberg.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 03, 2012 8:08 am

valerie;1392842 wrote: Facebook chap's last name is Zuckerberg.

Ah. That's what typing from memory does to me. The Zuckermann in my head is a girl called Clicky that I've not seen in thirty years, though I saw one of her brothers not long back.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 03, 2012 10:12 am

I would agree about the worth of money, it is only as good as what it can buy, and many things are priceless, meaning however much money you possess they are beyond you.

If Norway had purchased The Scream and put it in a national gallery, I could understand.

What I am questioning is the mechanism that puts so much value on what is basically some paint daubed on a canvas.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 03, 2012 10:20 am

Prestige, stemming from the 17th century when European monarchies laid down huge collections of what became the Old Masters and the rest of the aristocracy jumped on the bandwagon. It's been rolling ever since. The fact that practically all of the works are locked into national collections makes the very few which are still in private hands all the more sought after, which in turn keeps the notional value of the national collections astronomically high.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 03, 2012 1:45 pm

What prestige does an anonymous buyer achieve ? He is.....anonymous.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu May 03, 2012 2:00 pm

The prestige is knowing you are richer than most governments. Looking at The Scream will be a personal pleasure, & I'll bet he or she will get their rocks off just by gazing at it.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 03, 2012 2:07 pm

I get much the same reaction when I look at my Botticelli.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 03, 2012 2:13 pm

spot;1392871 wrote: I get much the same reaction when I look at my Botticelli.
I have had compliments about my Botticelli too.

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu May 03, 2012 2:17 pm

Do stop lowering the tone you two!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 03, 2012 2:26 pm

theia;1392874 wrote: Do stop lowering the tone you two!

Go on show us your Titian, you know you want to

theia · Post by **theia** » Thu May 03, 2012 2:36 pm

Bruv;1392875 wrote: Go on show us your Titian, you know you want to

My private collection is just that, private

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 06, 2012 4:01 am

Why?

I'll have a go: I think spot got about half the reason; the other half is the painting has to be special in some way. Munch painted a prefiguring of the C20th in many respects, with two world wars within 50 years of him painting. Also, Freud was busy inventing psychology at around this time, so the way the scream in the painting transforms everything catches that set of ideas perfectly. It's not just a painting, it's a reflection of a moment of development in ideas and a look into the future as well as an emotional reaction in itself. Oh, and I think it also changed ideas abut what a landscape painting should or could be, and so can truly be said to be an important work in the development of Western Art.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun May 06, 2012 5:56 am

Clodhopper;1393040 wrote: Why?

I'll have a go: I think spot got about half the reason; the other half is the painting has to be special in some way. Munch painted a prefiguring of the C20th in many respects, with two world wars within 50 years of him painting. Also, Freud was busy inventing psychology at around this time, so the way the scream in the painting transforms everything catches that set of ideas perfectly. It's not just a painting, it's a reflection of a moment of development in ideas and a look into the future as well as an emotional reaction in itself. Oh, and I think it also changed ideas abut what a landscape painting should or could be, and so can truly be said to be an important work in the development of Western Art.

Yea but yea but.......is it worth £74 million ?

Post by **spot** » Sun May 06, 2012 6:25 am

Clod's comments only apply in retrospect. The work may have become famous from the 1950s on but it can only have been practically unknown until then rather than being the worldwide icon it is today.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 06, 2012 7:23 am

Yea but yea but.......is it worth £74 million

I suppose the only answer at this point is "Yes" because that is what someone was prepared to pay for it. While it boggles the mind a bit that someone is prepared to pay that sort of money for canvas with pigment on it, if you see it as an expression of a time that can never be repeated and a moment of understanding for the human race and a moment of individual genius caught forever then it is perhaps literally priceless.

I think if I could spend that sort of money without blinking then I might buy it. Not sure I'd want it leering at me off the drawing room wall though. Back of the lavatory door to encourage a quick evacuation, perhaps...:sneaky:

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Mon May 07, 2012 8:54 am

It reminds me of a 4 yr old with a box of crayons.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 08, 2012 4:34 am

It clamps my heart with a cold hand. It is the moment of terrible revelation made real.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue May 08, 2012 11:25 pm

Everyone has the right to spend their money how they please, it's how prices for objects are determined that effectually epitomize society.

I would think there's plenty of people that would attempt to trade it for toilet paper under certain circumstances

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 09, 2012 2:06 am

I would think there's plenty of people that would attempt to trade it for toilet paper under certain circumstances

I imagine the amount of art chopped up for firewood on a cold night would have most museum curators needing sedatives if they thought about it too much. Still, it's priorities, innit? I'd burn $74,000,000 without a second thought to give myself the slightest chance of not freezing to death. If I thought the burning of the painting would give me a chance of survival, no question, it burns. But if I felt there was no realistic prospect of survival, I might choose to die and let the painting survive. I hope so.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed May 09, 2012 6:05 am

Clodhopper;1393283 wrote: I'd burn $74,000,000 without a second thought to give myself the slightest chance of not freezing to death.Do you think you could live with yourself knowing you'd burnt $74,000,000?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 09, 2012 10:25 am

Clodhopper;1393210 wrote: It clamps my heart with a cold hand. It is the moment of terrible revelation made real.

Would the original work any more wonder on you than a decent reproduction ?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:41 am

Do you think you could live with yourself knowing you'd burnt $74,000,000?

:)

I'd be delighted to be alive to regret it! Er, if you see what I mean.

Would the original work any more wonder on you than a decent reproduction ?

Yes, because the original is the actual work of of the artist, created by his hand and mind. I have had repro's of great paintings on my walls, but they have come down in favour of the original art of much lesser artists. And I have also found you can't mix the two - the repros look awful in comparison.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue May 15, 2012 9:06 am

Clodhopper;1393641 wrote:

I'd be delighted to be alive to regret it! Er, if you see what I mean.Since watching a film telling the story of theUruguayan rugby team who were involved in the crash of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, which crashed into the Andes mountains on October 13, 1972.

[...]

After great debate, the remaining passengers decide to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive.Alive (1993 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I'd asked my self the question of whether I could eat another human being in order to remain Alive and I found that my answer is most certainly a resounding "yes" while appreciating the fact that no one would judge me for that!

I suppose it goes without slaying but I'd also attempt to slather some of the flesh with as many condiments as I could find...

I'm not so sure I'd feel as weird if I'd burnt $74,000,000 in terms of the opportunity cost but I guess that would imply I were only thinking of myself...

An artist offered guests meatballs cooked in his own body fat when he hosted a dinner party recently.

Artist cooks food in his own fat | Metro.co.uk

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 15, 2012 10:09 am

Clodhopper;1393641 wrote:

Yes, because the original is the actual work of of the artist, created by his hand and mind. But so is the reproduction, it only a copy. Good reproductions can be almost undetectable.

I have had repro's of great paintings on my walls, but they have come down in favour of the original art of much lesser artists. And I have also found you can't mix the two - the repros look awful in comparison.

So what about fake paintings where even the 'experts' are not sure and often fooled by the skilled workmanship.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 15, 2012 10:10 am

An artist offered guests meatballs cooked in his own body fat when he hosted a dinner party recently.

Artist cooks food in his own fat | Metro.co.uk

That man is sick

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue May 15, 2012 11:03 am

Bruv;1393664 wrote: That man is sick
Also anyone who willingly participated in this feast.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 15, 2012 1:53 pm

AnneBoleyn;1393674 wrote: Also anyone who willingly participated in this feast.

But that is the point, he didn't tell them until after ?

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue May 15, 2012 4:20 pm

But so is the reproduction, it only a copy. Good reproductions can be almost undetectable.

Yeah, but it's not THE actual thing itself wot Munch (in this case) created and that's what makes it worth $74 squillion or whatever. As you yourself said: "only a copy" (my italic for emphasis).

So what about fake paintings where even the 'experts' are not sure and often fooled by the skilled workmanship

See above.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue May 15, 2012 8:13 pm

Bruv;1393664 wrote: That man is sickI wonder who might say the same about myself considering I wouldn't have paid a $1 for "The Scream"

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Wed May 16, 2012 2:08 am

I wonder who might say the same about myself considering I wouldn't have paid a $1 for "The Scream"

Not me. I don't get Abstract art. Just leaves me bemused. For my brother, on the other hand, it's the ONLY art.

And this meatball stuff - yik. Hope his guests at least knew before hand or he was forcing cannibalism on the unsuspecting. If they did know - well, what sort of a person would WANT to eat that????

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed May 16, 2012 11:26 am

Clodhopper;1393762 wrote: Not me. I don't get Abstract art. Just leaves me bemused. For my brother, on the other hand, it's the ONLY art.

And this meatball stuff - yik. Hope his guests at least knew before hand or he was forcing cannibalism on the unsuspecting. If they did know - well, what sort of a person would WANT to eat that????From what I remember of the documentary, which I'm sure can be found fairly easily on the internet, is that he not only informed the people of what was in the menu but did so in the written invitation before they'd even willingly drove to his house.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 16, 2012 2:48 pm

K.Snyder;1393772 wrote: ...... he not only informed the people of what was in the menu but did so in the written invitation before they'd even willingly drove to his house.

Then they are ALL sick.(If they were told it was cooked in hid bodily fat)

If the donor remains alive, is it cannibalism ?

Post by **spot** » Thu May 17, 2012 1:33 am

Bruv;1393795 wrote: If the donor remains alive, is it cannibalism ?
Donor? The Donor???

Back in my day[1] we called that "The Wictim" and used technical terms like "'Orrible End", "Dretful Fate" and "Oooooh".

[1] As documented by Jeffrey Farnol, may his saintly bones rest undisturbed.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 17, 2012 3:53 am

spot;1393811 wrote: Donor? The Donor???

Back in my day[1] we called that "The Wictim" and used technical terms like "'Orrible End", "Dretful Fate" and "Oooooh".

[1] As documented by Jeffrey Farnol, may his saintly bones rest undisturbed.

I only understood the "Donor, The Donor?" part of that, so will respond to that.

He cooked meatballs in his own liposuctioned body fat, hence Donor.

It could happen that a Donor might sacrifice a leg, so companions and themselves might survive, what a thought.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:27 am

Bruv;1393822 wrote: I only understood the "Donor, The Donor?" part of that, so will respond to that.I despair at the state of the land, I really do. Have we reached a point where a passing reference to Jasper Shrig of Bow Street meets only a blank look? Does the public no longer read novels? Does your local library no longer have access to a copy of Murder By Nail or Sir John Dering, for example? If so we might as well all turn the sign on the door to Closed and go home.

eta: whatever you do, absolutely refuse any copy marked "abridged by Barbara Cartland", they are all anathema, that woman was an accursed asset-stripping blight on English Literature.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 17, 2012 4:54 am

Get it right................it's Jeffery, not Jeffrey.(Please note the spelling of Jeffery -- it's surprising how many references get that wrong)

How am I supposed to follow with such sloppy use of our mother tongue ?

Ya da ya da da da ya de da........gone in to Spot mode

Post by **spot** » Thu May 17, 2012 5:24 am

You are, of course, quite right. I'm far more used to Geoffrey, the "ery" ending of Jeffery looks very odd in consequence.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 17, 2012 6:47 am

There is no 'ery' ending in 'Consequence'

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu May 17, 2012 8:50 am

Bruv;1393795 wrote: Then they are ALL sick.(If they were told it was cooked in hid bodily fat)

If the donor remains alive, is it cannibalism ?Sorry, I should have said that he offered two main courses, one of which consisted of his bodily fat, and the other not, so they had a choice. All who was invited were his friends so they perhaps felt it might have been rude to decline the invitation. Some of them tried his bodily fats while others declined.

I suppose you could say they are all sick for either being friends with people that eat human body fat or being those that eat human body fat...

Would you think the person that has eaten his own body fat is more or less sick?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 17, 2012 9:29 am

K.Snyder;1393834 wrote:

Would you think the person that has eaten his own body fat is more or less sick?

Are you asking who I think is the most sick, the person that eats another's fat or the person who eats their own ?

It has to be the ones that eat somebody elses.

I seem to remember Gandhi drank his own urine daily for some presumed benefit, that is nearly OK, but to drink another's urine would be much much more strange.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 17, 2012 9:56 am

Bruv;1393835 wrote: I seem to remember Gandhi drank his own urine daily for some presumed benefitAllow me to doubt that of any Gandhi. Sanjiv? Indira? The Mahatma? None of them, I suggest.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Thu May 17, 2012 10:09 am

Bruv;1393835 wrote: Are you asking who I think is the most sick, the person that eats another's fat or the person who eats their own ?

It has to be the ones that eat somebody elses.

I seem to remember Gandhi drank his own urine daily for some presumed benefit, that is nearly OK, but to drink another's urine would be much much more strange.Fats form a category of lipid, distinguished from other lipids by their chemical structure and physical properties. This category of molecules is important for many forms of life, serving both structural and metabolic functions. They are an important part of the diet of most heterotrophs (including humans).Fat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It would have to be purely psychological in my opinion. I suppose it's a matter of taste.

I do wonder how the evening would have gone if Mr. Evaristti had no eye lids or lips. "Ok, who wants to have the course with meatballs made with my body fat?"

"Oh, that sounds delicious, I think I'll try that!"

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 17, 2012 10:39 am

spot;1393836 wrote: Allow me to doubt that of any Gandhi. Sanjiv? Indira? The Mahatma? None of them, I suggest.
Mohandas apparently, but that is bye the bye, it is a so called therapy that is still used today.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 17, 2012 11:43 am

Bruv;1393840 wrote: Mohandas apparently, but that is bye the bye, it is a so called therapy that is still used today.

Though not, I think you'll find, by any Gandhi, neither Mohandas nor any other. And yes, it's a therapy, drinking urine has physiological effects based predominantly on re-absorbing and thereby boosting the effect of hormones. And drinking other people's urine boosts hormones the drinker has no alternative access to, I'm told - it's a traditional approach to pre-op body-sculpting.