What talent! This painting sold for 75 million

Eric Clapton's Watch Sold for $3.6M
Mark Rothko's "No. 1 (Royal Red and Blue)" from 1954 sold to a telephone bidder for $67 million, or $75.1 million with Sotheby's fees, on Nov. 13, 2012. The painting sold above its expected sale price of $35 million to $50 million. (Sothebys)

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/slideshow/Two-Rare-Coins-7-million-auction-items-2165601

I should have said it's #41.Three squares of paint on a canvas and not very good squares sold for 75 million. What a waste of money and what an idiot who bought it.

art is overrated. we spend way too much funds on art and entertainment which is a form of art.

art should be cheap and done for personal gain, not personal profit. although rich people can spend their money anyway they want. But to promote any forms of art over the sciences is detrimental to the survival of our species.

Chrissy wrote:art is overrated. we spend way too much funds on art and entertainment which is a form of art.

art should be cheap and done for personal gain, not personal profit. although rich people can spend their money anyway they want. But to promote any forms of art over the sciences is detrimental to the survival of our species.

I have to disagree with you on this point.

GOVERNMENT should spend little or no money on art.  PLENTY of people would  be willing to donate or contribute to art being displayed in public places.  NPR and PBS also have plenty of people willing to contribute to keep it on the air.

Of course art should be for personal profit.  Like anything else, a particular piece of art is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay.  If I'm willing to pay more than you for a piece of art, I get it, you do not.

It has nothing to do with sciences, the pie is not limited in size.  Contrary to what Progressives believe.

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:art is overrated. we spend way too much funds on art and entertainment which is a form of art.

art should be cheap and done for personal gain, not personal profit. although rich people can spend their money anyway they want. But to promote any forms of art over the sciences is detrimental to the survival of our species.

I have to disagree with you on this point.

GOVERNMENT should spend little or no money on art.  PLENTY of people would  be willing to donate or contribute to art being displayed in public places.  NPR and PBS also have plenty of people willing to contribute to keep it on the air.

Of course art should be for personal profit.  Like anything else, a particular piece of art is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay.  If I'm willing to pay more than you for a piece of art, I get it, you do not.

It has nothing to do with sciences, the pie is not limited in size.  Contrary to what Progressives believe.

im not really sure where you are disagreeing with me on this subject.

Dreamsglore wrote:I should have said it's #41.Three squares of paint on a canvas and not very good squares sold for 75 million. What a waste of money and what an idiot who bought it.

How is it a waste of money?  Unless it was bought with taxpayer money.


The buyer could afford the piece, they wanted it so they bought it.  Why is that any of your business?  As for the buyer being an idiot, they obviously are extremely wealthy and successful.  How do you get that way being an idiot?

What happens to that $75 million?

Chrissy wrote:

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:art is overrated. we spend way too much funds on art and entertainment which is a form of art.

art should be cheap and done for personal gain, not personal profit. although rich people can spend their money anyway they want. But to promote any forms of art over the sciences is detrimental to the survival of our species.

I have to disagree with you on this point.

GOVERNMENT should spend little or no money on art.  PLENTY of people would  be willing to donate or contribute to art being displayed in public places.  NPR and PBS also have plenty of people willing to contribute to keep it on the air.

Of course art should be for personal profit.  Like anything else, a particular piece of art is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay.  If I'm willing to pay more than you for a piece of art, I get it, you do not.

It has nothing to do with sciences, the pie is not limited in size.  Contrary to what Progressives believe.

im not really sure where you are disagreeing with me on this subject.

There.

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:I should have said it's #41.Three squares of paint on a canvas and not very good squares sold for 75 million. What a waste of money and what an idiot who bought it.

How is it a waste of money?  Unless it was bought with taxpayer money.


The buyer could afford the piece, they wanted it so they bought it.  Why is that any of your business?  As for the buyer being an idiot, they obviously are extremely wealthy and successful.  How do you get that way being an idiot?

What happens to that $75 million?

It is a waste of money because that is my opinion,Markle. Do you get that? Should I type that again,you old idiot? I am entitled to my opinion no matter what your opinion is. Do you get that,Markle or do I need to type it slower?
The painting is a worthless piece of junk my 5 yr. old granddaughter could have painted better and w/ more talent.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:I should have said it's #41.Three squares of paint on a canvas and not very good squares sold for 75 million. What a waste of money and what an idiot who bought it.

How is it a waste of money?  Unless it was bought with taxpayer money.


The buyer could afford the piece, they wanted it so they bought it.  Why is that any of your business?  As for the buyer being an idiot, they obviously are extremely wealthy and successful.  How do you get that way being an idiot?

What happens to that $75 million?

It is a waste of money because that is my opinion,Markle. Do you get that? Should I type that again,you old idiot? I am entitled to my opinion no matter what your opinion is. Do you get that,Markle or do I need to type it slower?
The painting is a worthless piece of junk my 5 yr. old granddaughter could have painted better and w/ more talent.

Then you should have said...IN MY OPINION....

If your 5 year old granddaughter can paint that, or you can, why don't you and you'll be RICH beyond your wildest dreams overnight?

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:art is overrated. we spend way too much funds on art and entertainment which is a form of art.

art should be cheap and done for personal gain, not personal profit. although rich people can spend their money anyway they want. But to promote any forms of art over the sciences is detrimental to the survival of our species.

I have to disagree with you on this point.

GOVERNMENT should spend little or no money on art.  PLENTY of people would  be willing to donate or contribute to art being displayed in public places.  NPR and PBS also have plenty of people willing to contribute to keep it on the air.

Of course art should be for personal profit.  Like anything else, a particular piece of art is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay.  If I'm willing to pay more than you for a piece of art, I get it, you do not.

It has nothing to do with sciences, the pie is not limited in size.  Contrary to what Progressives believe.

im not really sure where you are disagreeing with me on this subject.

There.

youre not reaching me. perhaps because I just don't have the abstract mind you think I do.

I think the most beautiful art is in front of our eyes with space, nature, the human body. my fav alltime artist as some may remember frm wayyyyy back is Georgia okeef....

but even with that... youre not getting my objection to states or feds using tax payer funds to promote it instead of the more useful tools

Chrissy wrote:

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:art is overrated. we spend way too much funds on art and entertainment which is a form of art.

art should be cheap and done for personal gain, not personal profit. although rich people can spend their money anyway they want. But to promote any forms of art over the sciences is detrimental to the survival of our species.

I have to disagree with you on this point.

GOVERNMENT should spend little or no money on art.  PLENTY of people would  be willing to donate or contribute to art being displayed in public places.  NPR and PBS also have plenty of people willing to contribute to keep it on the air.

Of course art should be for personal profit.  Like anything else, a particular piece of art is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay.  If I'm willing to pay more than you for a piece of art, I get it, you do not.

It has nothing to do with sciences, the pie is not limited in size.  Contrary to what Progressives believe.

im not really sure where you are disagreeing with me on this subject.

There.

youre not reaching me. perhaps because I just don't have the abstract mind you think I do.

I think the most beautiful art is in front of our eyes with space, nature, the human body. my fav alltime artist as some may remember frm wayyyyy back is Georgia okeef....

but even with that... youre not getting my objection to states or feds using tax payer funds to promote it instead of the more useful tools

You didn't say that, I did.

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Markle wrote:

Chrissy wrote:art is overrated. we spend way too much funds on art and entertainment which is a form of art.

art should be cheap and done for personal gain, not personal profit. although rich people can spend their money anyway they want. But to promote any forms of art over the sciences is detrimental to the survival of our species.

I have to disagree with you on this point.

GOVERNMENT should spend little or no money on art.  PLENTY of people would  be willing to donate or contribute to art being displayed in public places.  NPR and PBS also have plenty of people willing to contribute to keep it on the air.

Of course art should be for personal profit.  Like anything else, a particular piece of art is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay.  If I'm willing to pay more than you for a piece of art, I get it, you do not.

It has nothing to do with sciences, the pie is not limited in size.  Contrary to what Progressives believe.

im not really sure where you are disagreeing with me on this subject.

There.

youre not reaching me. perhaps because I just don't have the abstract mind you think I do.

I think the most beautiful art is in front of our eyes with space, nature, the human body. my fav alltime artist as some may remember frm wayyyyy back is Georgia okeef....

but even with that... youre not getting my objection to states or feds using tax payer funds to promote it instead of the more useful tools

You didn't say that, I did.

art is overrated. we spend way too much funds on art and entertainment

kiss kiss hugs

  

I like yella's art and poems... I'd rather own one of his.

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:I should have said it's #41.Three squares of paint on a canvas and not very good squares sold for 75 million. What a waste of money and what an idiot who bought it.

How is it a waste of money?  Unless it was bought with taxpayer money.


The buyer could afford the piece, they wanted it so they bought it.  Why is that any of your business?  As for the buyer being an idiot, they obviously are extremely wealthy and successful.  How do you get that way being an idiot?

What happens to that $75 million?

It is a waste of money because that is my opinion,Markle. Do you get that? Should I type that again,you old idiot? I am entitled to my opinion no matter what your opinion is. Do you get that,Markle or do I need to type it slower?
The painting is a worthless piece of junk my 5 yr. old granddaughter could have painted better and w/ more talent.

Then you should have said...IN MY OPINION....

If your 5 year old granddaughter can paint that, or you can, why don't you and you'll be RICH beyond your wildest dreams overnight?

Clearly, anyone w/ a scintilla of intelligence knows that what is posted here is opinion unless it is referenced by evidence. Does anyone other than Markle believe what is posted is not opinion? I mean.. I am stunned by his remarks that you have to say that? Is this man for real or is he really that obtuse?