I’d like to say shame on you to the person who paid that amount for a painting–any painting. Hopefully it’s someone who gives millions to charity, but I still find it revolting that that kind of money is being spent on a painting.
My understanding is that rich people do not pay out this kind of coin because they want a thing. Rather, they will buy stuff that has a resale value. If you can buy something for this much money, what it really means is that you are speculating that the object will be worth even more to someone else. In other words, it is an investment as opposed to a simple purchase.
The money’s passing from hand to hand but not vanishing; in the vender’s account it is exactly as available for expenditure on charitable causes–or for any other use you might find more acceptable–as it was in the buyer’s.
Are any of you familar with the Freud family? It’s not like they just poped out of the woodwork. Buying a Lucian Michael Freud work is more than just buying a Lucian Michael Freud work. And it is certainly better than a Fernando Botero Angulo.
Of course I know who they are (the descendants of Sigmund Freud). So? How does being the grandchild of Sigmund Freud warrant your painting selling for 33 million dollars?
It was sold according to the theoretical weight of the subject. I would say about 75 cents per pound.
On another level, what warrants buying any work of art for a huge amount of money? I can’t answer that because I am neither a critic of it nor an aficionado. However, if somebody paid me that kind of money for something I did, I would not feel the least bit embarrassed at taking it.
Well, I guess I’d hope that people with that kind of money would use it to help cure breast cancer or AIDS or to help people on death row, or something other than buying a painting for 33 million dollars. Perhaps I’m too optimistic.
It’s not just Sigmund, it’s the whole family of accomplished individuals of which Lucian is one also. He has an impressive “body” of work over a long life span. Its not my cup of tea but I recognize why someone would get in a bidding war for the piece. I’d call it a “Supernormal Studio Art 101 Human Figure” work
Some art is considered valuable because it provokes the viewer or even makes the viewer angry or uncomfortable.
Such art can be used as a kind of “negative mirror” to see your own fears and prejudices…thus, it has value.
As to how much monetary value, someone evidently thought it had an enormous amount. I’m not sure I see that particular amount of value in it myself, but that hardly matters…if I were in the market for nude art, I would be seeking something that would actually be pleasant to look at, and so wouldn’t be in the market for this particular piece anyway.
By the way, speaking of prejudice…did you happen to note the title of the thing?
Of course, it doesn’t - and I’d be surprised if anyone seriously thought that was the reason for the interest in LF’s work.
This thread makes me curious… Is LF generally known in the US? Or is it just the money that has brought this painting to the notice of the ‘Sex in the City’ watching public?
I actually think this is one of Freud’s more appealing pictures. Some of the portraits are, like, really harsh.
LF doesn’t specialise in pretty, nor in impenetrable abstraction that any bluffer could sell. Who, in their right mind would paint this stuff for any cynical or commercial reason?
It may not be pretty (and apart from this expensive one, is Freud even fashionable?), but I’d make room for it.
An interesting pic of a real person. Now that is what LF does.
“Benefits Supervisor Sleeping” depicts Sue Tilley, a manager of a government-run job center in London, lying on her side on a worn-out couch with nothing to hide her folds of flesh.
Tilley still works full-time at the job center in London’s West End and calls her newfound fame “a bit bizarre.” She laughs as she describes how she now has to arrange her schedule to accommodate media interviews.