Hi,
Would you pay over ?73 million for this?
music.columbia.edu/~chris/pics/1.example.01.jpg
One of the largest paintings troubled artist Jackson Pollock completed - the unromantically entitled No. 5, 1948 - has been sold for no less a sum than ?73.35m
Alan
.
If I had ?73 million, who knows what I might do! :lol:
.
.
Looks like one of my wife’s homemade pizzas. And I wouldn’t pay ? 5 for one of those.
.
Hi
This reminds me of the old joke: “Because of criminal negligence of the museum staff, the picture Black square by Kazimir Malevich was hanging wrong side up in public access for almost three months.” (sorry my poor translation)
Anyway, it may be just a good investment. People are strange creatures.
Regularly and hopefully going crazy – if speaking in the context of investments of such kind.
Hello,
Well only a true artist can tell the worth of the this picture and for sure who ever has bought it for that good lump of money is either an artist from heart or some rich man who loves to collect image building items for his huge lounge. Had you mentioned the meanings which this abstract peice of art conveys, it would have been pretty easy for me to decide if i would buy it or not!
.
One of my brothers is a painter. But when he finally realized how tough it is to make a living as a painter, he ended up becoming an illustrator of children’s books. Although I adore his illustrations, I never thought he’d end up illustrating stuff for kids.
I think I’ll send him Alan’s link. Some of the paintings I’ve seen in my brother’s basement are fantastic. And there are even a couple that look something like the one in Alan’s post. Who knows… 
Amy
I like the painting I usually like that sort of paintings… It’s not easy to understand what it shows but it’s really impressive somehow.
And yet, I wouldn’t spend ?73 million on a painting… It’s crazy! 
