This painting just sold for $75 million at auction. Someone please explain to me why.

hallmarkgrad wrote:Damn it!!! I just paid Bob 150.00 for a copy of his art

Unfortunately I think you were scammed, hallmark. You've obviously bought a fake. A Bob original wouldn't be all gussied up with that brown color around it because I couldn't find anything but white paint at the yard sale.
That's obviously somebody's example of neobob'ism.

Bob wrote:

hallmarkgrad wrote:Damn it!!! I just paid Bob 150.00 for a copy of his art

Unfortunately I think you were scammed, hallmark. You've obviously bought a fake. A Bob original wouldn't be all gussied up with that brown color around it because I couldn't find anything but white paint at the yard sale.
That's obviously somebody's example of neobob'ism.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Uh huh. Giggling school girls are amusing, but they have a short shelf life.

Can you tell me why you are involved in the inflation of value for objects that were sold long ago, but now demand many times their real value in re-sale....?

Intrinsic value is amorphous and clouded by the price it will command when the right buyer (sucker) comes along.

That axiom is clearly defined in art, and almost any other objects or papers that are collectible.

W_T_M wrote:

Can you tell me why you are involved in the inflation of value for objects that were sold long ago, but now demand many times their real value in re-sale....?

Intrinsic value is amorphous and clouded by the price it will command when the right buyer (sucker) comes along.

That axiom is clearly defined in art, and almost any other objects or papers that are collectible.

The part of that I've put in blue is all absolutely true. And I accept it all with no problem until a truly gross example of the ridiculous crosses my radar.
And don't worry, I've seen my share of that with collectibles too.

But to try to answer the question I've put in red. I once fished some antique slot machines from the bottom of the Escatawpa River in Mississippi which had been thrown in there thirty years earlier. I actually was able to restore one of them and sell it.
The old boy had backed his truck up to the river's edge and dumped them when he got tipped off to an impending raid. He was in his eighties when I met up with him. Filled me in on his whole career as an illegal slot machine operator. And then with a lot of trepidation (it was still illegal to possess them in MS at the time) he led me to the spot in the river.
If Rothko has a story to go with those squares of color to equal that then the painting does have some value. But I sold that slot machine for 800 bucks. Not $75 million.

Bob wrote:

Bob, one man's junk is another man's treasure. That should answer the question you posed in this thread title.....................

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Bob, one man's junk is another man's treasure. That should answer the question you posed in this thread title.....................

Yes and thank god for it. Elst I would have had to work for a living. lol

Bob wrote:

Ghandi_is_my_bitch wrote:Art is not what it is, it's what it means.

Then this art will mean something too...















... and I know what you're thinking, what art is he referring to? Well it's there allright it's just hard to see. It's four white squares all one after the other (one square more than Rothko even). And the artist (me) says the meaning to be found in it is that not everything which pretends to be art is always actually art.

I see you took the "takes and empty canvas and hangs it on the wall" line out of my last post by Dire Straits and ran with it.

You have true potential as an upcoming artist...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDRLZFgEoGw

Damaged Eagle wrote:

I see you took the "takes and empty canvas and hangs it on the wall" line out of my last post by Dire Straits and ran with it.

No actually I think it must have been such an obvious concept that me and Mr. Straits both had no choice but to think of it.

Bob wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Bob, one man's junk is another man's treasure. That should answer the question you posed in this thread title.....................

Yes and thank god for it. Elst I would have had to work for a living. lol

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Come on Bob....you DO work for a living.

Perception is reality...

W_T_M wrote:

Come on Bob....you DO work for a living.

Perception is reality...

Yes, it was my living because I was able to make enough money off of it to avoid having a job. But that's the only thing that qualified it as "work".
The truth is that if I'd also had a day job (like some of my friends who were doing the same thing), I would have been doing it in my spare time for fun anyway which is what they did. When you can spend your days doing what amounts to a hobby, it really is not like actual work.
Also, I did it with so little overhead that it didn't have the same stress that so many other "self-employed" people have to cope with. I basically did it with a truck (which doubled as my personal vehicle) and a warehouse that I bought for cash for $6000 (which I sold for $18,000 when I quit) and nothing much else.

W_T_M wrote:

Bob wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Bob, one man's junk is another man's treasure. That should answer the question you posed in this thread title.....................

Yes and thank god for it. Elst I would have had to work for a living. lol

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Come on Bob....you DO work for a living.

Perception is reality...

Get a JOB, son.

[quote="Yella"]

W_T_M wrote:

Bob wrote:

Ghost_Rider1 wrote:

Bob, one man's junk is another man's treasure. That should answer the question you posed in this thread title.....................

Yes and thank god for it. Elst I would have had to work for a living. lol

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Come on Bob....you DO work for a living.

Perception is reality...

Get a JOB, son.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You sure you wanna start stalking me you old poser....?

I'm not even sure why you made that post. Bob has always worked as far as I know, so what's your feckless point this time....?

Bob wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Come on Bob....you DO work for a living.

Perception is reality...

Yes, it was my living because I was able to make enough money off of it to avoid having a job. But that's the only thing that qualified it as "work".
The truth is that if I'd also had a day job (like some of my friends who were doing the same thing), I would have been doing it in my spare time for fun anyway which is what they did. When you can spend your days doing what amounts to a hobby, it really is not like actual work.
Also, I did it with so little overhead that it didn't have the same stress that so many other "self-employed" people have to cope with. I basically did it with a truck (which doubled as my personal vehicle) and a warehouse that I bought for cash for $6000 (which I sold for $18,000 when I quit) and nothing much else.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

OK...but in my eyes, your self employment "hobby" equates to a job.

hallmarkgrad wrote:Damn it!!! I just paid Bob 150.00 for a copy of his art

Very nice. Are you going to frame it?

Joanimaroni wrote:

hallmarkgrad wrote:Damn it!!! I just paid Bob 150.00 for a copy of his art

Very nice. Are you going to frame it?

Yes I found a frame that has some art that looks very close but it lacks the warmth and feeling that Bobs piece radiates.

Beautiful.

Bob wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

I see you took the "takes and empty canvas and hangs it on the wall" line out of my last post by Dire Straits and ran with it.

No actually I think it must have been such an obvious concept that me and Mr. Straits both had no choice but to think of it.

Then there are times that the music changes forever...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xkj0TeZeZuo

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnlTrq6wLf0

When dealing in artwork in these values the selling and buying are looked at as investments that can be enjoyed. They do carry a risk of depreciating in value depending on social and monetary changes within society. Example: Up until around 2000, any restored automobile with an exposed radiator such as the 1929 Ford Model -A, Buick, Dodge or Duesenberg Automobile (sometimes referred to as "Duesy") sold for high dollars. Most all of the people who would be interested in such an automobile have died or to infirm to enjoy such a vehicle. Today the high dollar selling automobiles are the muscle cars of that period, such as the Pontiac GTO. Corvette, Chevrolet 409. So, what I'm saying is, "Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beholder." Also, there is an old Arab saying, "never price another mans cow..........He knows what it's worth to him."

Slicef18 wrote:When dealing in artwork in these values the selling and buying are looked at as investments that can be enjoyed. They do carry a risk of depreciating in value depending on social and monetary changes within society.

I hope you're reading this, hallmark. As aethestically pleasing as it is, I think it would be a good idea to unload that original bob painting before it starts depreciating. lol

Bob wrote:

Because is was not worth more to the person with the winning bid.

The painting first sold in 1974 for $105,000 so it was a pretty good investment.

W_T_M wrote:

Bob wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Come on Bob....you DO work for a living.

Perception is reality...

Yes, it was my living because I was able to make enough money off of it to avoid having a job. But that's the only thing that qualified it as "work".
The truth is that if I'd also had a day job (like some of my friends who were doing the same thing), I would have been doing it in my spare time for fun anyway which is what they did. When you can spend your days doing what amounts to a hobby, it really is not like actual work.
Also, I did it with so little overhead that it didn't have the same stress that so many other "self-employed" people have to cope with. I basically did it with a truck (which doubled as my personal vehicle) and a warehouse that I bought for cash for $6000 (which I sold for $18,000 when I quit) and nothing much else.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

OK...but in my eyes, your self employment "hobby" equates to a job.

Nope, find something you LOVE doing and you'll never work a day in your life. That is SO, SO TRUE. I hear people complain nearly daily about their job, the countdown to retirement and I can't wrap my head around such a thing. I guess I've just been extremely lucky.

Markle wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Bob wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Come on Bob....you DO work for a living.

Perception is reality...

Yes, it was my living because I was able to make enough money off of it to avoid having a job. But that's the only thing that qualified it as "work".
The truth is that if I'd also had a day job (like some of my friends who were doing the same thing), I would have been doing it in my spare time for fun anyway which is what they did. When you can spend your days doing what amounts to a hobby, it really is not like actual work.
Also, I did it with so little overhead that it didn't have the same stress that so many other "self-employed" people have to cope with. I basically did it with a truck (which doubled as my personal vehicle) and a warehouse that I bought for cash for $6000 (which I sold for $18,000 when I quit) and nothing much else.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

OK...but in my eyes, your self employment "hobby" equates to a job.

Nope, find something you LOVE doing and you'll never work a day in your life. That is SO, SO TRUE. I hear people complain nearly daily about their job, the countdown to retirement and I can't wrap my head around such a thing. I guess I've just been extremely lucky.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Idiot.

He loves his job/hobby/avocation. What part of that is so difficult for you...?

The day you stop spamming, lying, and shilling will be the day someone breaks down the door to some seedy room and cuts off your fingers.

Look, here's the bottom line on this painting.

If anyone reading and/or responding to this thread knew nothing about Rothko or "minimalism" or what people have paid for this painting, and you then were shown this painting, I say flatly that you wouldn't give it a second glance.