Edvard Munch, The Scream, 1895
Edvard Munch’s The Scream 1895 goes on the auction block Tuesday night, May 2, 2012, at Sotheby’s auction house in New York City. This picture is one of four versions of this iconic work of art. In the last two decades, other versions of Munch’s painting have been stolen (and recovered). The painting is estimated to fetch $80 million but some say it may break the record for the most expensive painting sold at auction. Picasso’s Nude, Green Leaves, and Bust 1932 holds the record when it sold for $106.5 million ($95 million plus the auction house fees) at Christie’s auction house in May 2010. The Picasso painting sold in just 8 minutes on the sale floor. What do you think of the astronomical prices of the art market? Explore Sotheby’s catalogue entry for Munch’s painting and watch the record-breaking sale of Picasso’s picture in 2010. You can also watch the Munch auction live at Sothebys.com.
Sotheby’s description of Munch’s The Scream
Inside the saleroom of record-breaking Picasso auction
Please post or comment on a fellow student’s post by May 12th.
i feel that the art market prices are too high just for a version of the painting not the original,these paitings should only be keeped in measum’s for everyones eye they should not be optioned out or sold to anybody . by this happening it would most likely bring the artist more money because all the money people would pay to go and see this painting will double since its a orginal piece of art and there no other version of it.
I agree, if this was for one of the versions imagine other more important versions. I also think this painting is too small for this price and not of much importantce. A bigger painting with some historical meaning to it that the person can personally relate to would be understandable. Then again, 119 million maybe be small money for the person that bought it and maybe wants it to personally host a small exhibit, then it would be more reasonable.
i strongly agree as well who would pay so much to own a replica and not the original? thats like grabbing a pair of steve madden pumps and painting the bottom red to make them look like there louboutin and and selling them for exactly the price of the originals. the original is obviously more valuable and a painting with that much history should be on display for the world to see its magnificence that will obviously bring money just so people can see it just as she said ^^^
The art market prices are crazy but hey what do you expect on a painting that anyone in the world would like to have in there house. Especially if that art is popular in tv shows and books. The artists makes it seem like easy money on the prices these people be putting on the art work. Starting a bid at 58 million, really? your pretty much set with what ever price they sell your work for.
I believe these prices are a bit out of control, but that’s the beauty of capitalism. Just like real estate, it’s only worth what someone is willing to pay. If you have the money and want to spend $119,922,500 (amount that The Scream sold for) on a painting, that’s your choice. It’s an absurd choice, but it’s that persons choice. It’s really sort of a shame to spend that kind of money on a painting, and it is only a painting. Just think about all of the charitable things that could be done with that money…it’s mind blowing.
These are very shocking numbers for copies of paintings. It makes me want to make a version of a famous art piece just to see how much it can be sold at auctions. When I saw this on the news not only was I shocked by the high amount of money the paintings were being auctioned for, but I was also shocked by how much the buyers were offering. I can imagine that the people who had bought the paintings are very wealthy. I personally think that those prices were really ridiculous but then again people have the right to spend their money however they want.
I have no problem with these millionaires blowing their money away at these auctions. We have people out there who spend thousands of dollars on clothing, shoes, and many other materialistic things. These people have the money at their disposal so why not use it on some fine pieces of art.
i agree with daniel, people spend money on things that really have no purpose in value, yes do i feel art should be kept in a musem for all to admire yes, do i feel that the price of a painting is waaaaaaay to high, i also agree, but if these millionares deciede to spend thier money on a painting they should invest on making a museums dedicated to extrodianry art rather than to keep them for thier own pleasure in thier living rooms
I agree with many of the points discussed in the thread. That is an insane amount of cash to spend on an item that is just a version of the original. But, who are we to tell the millionaire art collector, how to spend his wealth? What I find disturbing is the fact that once these works are in private hands, we may never see them again. They will exist for the private enjoyment of the wealthy. If these art works are loaned to museums around the world for public exhibits, then, they will remain a part of our collective wealth. Sadly, they may not be seen by the public for several decades.
after watching the auctions I asked these two questions myself. Do millionaires buy these paintings to sell them in the future to make extra profit? or Do they pay hundred millions because they are really love the art?. I think mos of them blow their money away to sell them again in the future. If I had millions I could buy them to sell in the future
Its crazy that these paintings are worth millions of dollars. I could understand its because they’re popular, but the millions of dollars is still a crazy amount. I bet even Edvard Munch did not make as much for what it is being sold for. Maybe for some people, art holds a lot of meaning and some paintings expressions so many feelings, which makes them interesting to buy.
I understand that art is acknowledged, and it is even better when our surrounding is filled with it, but I will have to agree with giovanni. Paintings are extremely expensive, not only because is made by a famous painter but because it is declared as a work of art, which is the reason I think rich people wants to own it. Famous painting should be in the museum for everyone to enjoy it, it shouldn’t just be owned. With a lot of cash they could invest in these museums so that the museum could be even a better experience.
The art market is out of control. The prices are too high for the painting and not even the original. But if people wants to waste their money like that let them do so.
*adding on* Paintings that have history should belong to museums and not be sold. Even if their copies they shouldn’t be sold to someone just so they can get money out of it.
I say if people love these copies of paintings so much, and are willing to spend huge amounts of money for them, there’s nothing wrong with that. They’re obviously passionate about the painting, and they will take very good care of it, even though its only a copy. Me personally, I wouldn’t spend that much on the real painting, let alone a copy of it. I’d rather spend it on a car – I love them as much as this guy loves the copy of that painting, so I understand.
I wonder at the motivation behind the huge bids with these paintings. Im sure it has nothing to do with the art work itself but the prestige of owning it. Im sure the artist would be disgusted with art bidding today just like it was then.
I think the price of this painting is outrageous, especially for a version of the original. The price should’ve been lowered. I also curious to know why millionaires purchase these paintings. Is it because they truely have a passion for art? or they just want it?
or maybe they’re waiting for the price to skyrocket even more so that they can make a profit. I also wonder if we will ever see this painting again.
That is an insane amount of money. And not even for the original. I rather use a fraction of that money to get a painter paint a replica on my wall then waste millions of dollars on a bootleg. This is insane.
I agree with what everyone else is saying that why should a piece of art cost so much if it is not an original but merely a copy. Art nowadays has become a business and it has lost its true meaning and purpose.
i think that the amount of money that is paid for art is insane. Yes these painting are old but yet a copy. IF it was the original piece and sold for that much then ok, but not a copy.
Galleries depend on wealthy donors to the extent that they do because they are competing in an economy that demands enormous capital investment. Auctions these days need wealthy collectors to finance the kind of large expensive spaces that attract wealthy collectors attend to to buy these paintings.
I think art that is historic should not be sold at such incredibly high prices for the fact that high level society keeps these precious works of art and do with them as they choose. I feel that art should have a high price tag but only be sold to institutions for a more public view. If a famous painter sold one of his painting or had it sold at an auction i feel this should be to historical or galleries to adequately preserve these works. I do not agree of people per say purchasing the Mona Lisa for private viewing in their home.