.???

?

Them fancy pitchers sure do cost a lot a money.

Why?

The people who call this art are the same people who will walk straight through the gates of hell thinking they´re in heaven.

#3, it is ´art´ because it was the first color field painting style recognized and promoted by the New York city art scene, over 50 years ago. Big, recognizable, and a style that didn´t threaten viewers in any way. They are nice in the right room. Are his paintings worth $75 million? Obviously they are since someone spent that much. They broke through the ´what would I pay for that´ barrier decades ago and became a substitute for stocks or bonds. The people paying that much have a LOT more money to spend on their vast ranches, hideouts, vehicles and panic rooms.

The problem isn´t Rothko, I like his work because it turns it´s back on all your realistic expectations and no ´message,´ the problem is it seems like one more example of the dollar floating off into Deutschmark 1928 territory. My next work might be a wheelbarrow full of stage money US dollars with a loaf of bread on top.

I think this painting makes its´ own subtle statement about artistic ambiguity and the inherent dream-like quality of out-bidding a bunch of low-grade morons.

Rothko has his own room in London´s prestigious Tate Gallery; the centerpiece of that collection is a canvas of solid puce (yes, puce). Nothing else but pure puce. The day I viewed it was the day I had my epiphany about contemporary art: It is meaningless postmodern dreck, painted by soulless postmodern drones, worshipped by pretentious postmodern sycophants and sold to a clueless postmodern world.

If you Google Rothko and click Images, you will see that he did the same painting over and over and over again, except with different colors. I just don´t get it.

On second thought, maybe we should raise their taxes.

I think someone´s confused. That´s not a painting, it´s a side view of a package of Chuckles Jelly Candies.

It´s worth it cause it´s real purty and it took Rothko 15 whole minutes to paint it.

I have a Don Troiani. I consider that real art, but to each his own. I only paid 25 million for it.

So which color did he choose to paint the room?

LOL #9. It´s better than a lot of art, but I just can´t image spending that amount on a painting. I second #12; I have two Don Troiani´s.

So, it appears that millionaires are moving away from currency into tangibles that will retain value.

Think gold for us less fortunate folk. This is a hedge against inflation and/or devaluation.

Interesting.

Did anyone see "Lilihammer" the made-for-TV series about the NY mobster who goes into the witness protection program and winds up in Norway? Check it out on Netflix. Anyway, this reminds me of something from that movie when a bunch of NY thugs decided to launder their money / park a large sum in plain sight. They bought an outrageously expensive modern painting.

#4 gets it.

Rothko considered his work intensely spiritual and when you look at nature in the same patterns, you think the same thing. It´s worth what the market thinks it´s worth. Don´t like it? Buy something else.

My problem is recalling that I had two of these on my refrigerator in 1959.

Makes me wonder how much my "Dogs With Big Sad Eyes Playing Poker " on velvet might be worth someday.