$44 Million Blue canvas with a White Stroke. Art huh?
I love art as much as the next luxury blogger but it never ceases to amaze me just how much money people care to spend on things like this, so imagine my reaction when I heard about the $44 Million Blue canvas with a white stroke going down its middle.
Yeah, it made me wonder what the hell is the secret sauce to “Art deals” because artists seem to be some of the best marketing people to ever walk the Earth.
I don’t necessarily have a problem with the way people spend their hard earned money but just exactly where do you draw the line between “This is a major investment in an invaluable asset” and Bullshit?!
Recently I wrote a post explaining Why Smart Rich Men don’t settle just for beauty in which I took a look at why it just doesn’t make sense for successful men to commit when the only thing that’s thrown back at you is a pleasant sight.
In it there’s a correlation to why people buy art and on what criteria people choose the pieces they buy (Scarcity, Story and Interest factor).
The problem I have with intangible value such as historical value or Celebrity degree of affiliation (a straw used by Justin Bieber is apparently sold on eBay for close to 4 figures, I kid you not) is that I feel they take advantage of people believing that owning such a piece will influence their life in such a positive way that it’s worth the down payment.
Let’s take a look at the painting in question just as it is, without you having a reference to who’s the artist or the story behind it.
You’re a smart individual, you appreciate art but you’re also a wise investor, just how much would you pay for this:
“The blue used in it stands for the element of life which is water, the enormity of space and time with the stroke portraying the life cycle of man from birth to death.”
You don’t need to be an art connoisseur to realize I just made that up and no matter how hard I try to convince you otherwise when you draw the line it’s a blue canvas with a white line on it.
Before the entire bunch of art students start lecturing me in the comments about the depth of this piece and how ignorant I am and should never ever write another art post I’d like to look at it from an investment perspective.
It’s true that the value of rare art goes up with time but I always like to go back to the 2007 example. Yep, when the economy crashes art is the first thing people try to rid themselves of, because it has no concrete value to it.
Most people that made big investments in art pieces and found themselves in dept during the crisis never recovered, banks massively undervaluing their “priceless” pieces at fractions of they paid for it.
Last year at Sotheby’s auction, Barnett Newman‘s “Onement VI” sold for $43.8 Million.
[quote_box_right]Newman overwhelms and seduces the viewer with the totality of its sensual, cascading washes of vibrant blue coexisting with Newman’s vertical “Sign” of the human presence, his iconic and revolutionary “zip.”[/quote_box_right]
The official interpretation of the piece is on the right and although Barnett is one of the major figures in abstract expressionism it should never come close to this type of money figures.
The artists second most expensive painting, Ulysses sold for $1.5 Million back in 1985.
But for that kind of money you get a 2.6m x 3m (8.5? x 10?) piece of art history.
Painted back in 1961, the marketing mechanics were put in place so one day each of his works might be considered “priceless”.
What do you think? Do you like it? How much would you really pay for something like this if you saw it done by an starting-out artist down the street? Or maybe you’ll adventure yourself for making your own?
Let us know what you think in the comments down bellow!