I realize I'm not the most cultural person, but I still find it hard to believe that the Christopher Wool "picture" could fetch 700k. I'm sure it will from someone who would appreciate it more than I, but I just can't wrap my mind around it.

I think a lot of it has to do with the context in which that work was created. This "picture" is one of those things that anyone could do, and it's not the most aesthetically pleasing thing you could make, but Wool was the first to make art like this, and he became a big name because of pieces like this. Private art collectors aren't a thrifty bunch, and there's a lot of prestige to be had from owning something instantly identifiable like this or a Rothko or a Pollock or a Mondrian.

It could, though, also be that some people just have a strong fascination with a certain 4-letter word, right Mr. Feld?

I do really like the irony of a "Fuckem if they can't take a joke" picture selling for such an obscene amount of money.

Profanity is the common crutch of the conversational cripple - David Keuck

In this case it is is both above and a joke on us public, who need to make excuses that it is all "art". Sometimes it may just be a drunken artist playing a joke on us and laughing all the way to the bank in the process!

The painting sold for $1,160,000.

There's a lot more going on in this picture than a joke or the artist laughing all the way to the bank. The artist wasn't going to the bank much when he started working like this - painting text – 25 years ago. He was exploring the limits of painting and expression - alone in a tiny studio with no idea or expectations of what would happen.

That's one of the things I love about artists – bravery. They explore the uncharted territory of our world and how we live in it, with little assurance that anyone will ever see what they’re doing. In trying to understand the world, the exceptional ones both recognize and articulate something fundamental and profound about us. We make what we want of what they say and do, often adding meaning of our own, and I think there's some of that in this painting.

While today’s art market has driven some of the “value” of what these artists are doing to an extreme, that doesn’t discount the importance of what these artists have done (or that they too shouldn't make a profit in a bear market). And I wouldn't accuse collectors of not being thrifty. They're thrifty enough to have a million bucks to drop on a painting they like and probably didn't get there by making bad financial decisions.

I think this painting is deep with meaning and hilarious at the same time – and I’m happy to see the world in that way.

I completely understand why someone would want to pay so much money for a piece for their private art collection. However, what I cannot understand is how someone could be so selfish! Art belongs in the public sphere, and I highly doubt anyone would pay 70 million + for a Rothko just to donate it to a museum...not fair.

And I don't even want to know how much private firms conducting these auctions is raking in (see: http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/309598/Entertainment?c_id=kc)

"Pictures"?

I can think of plenty of Paintings Curators in the art museum world, but nary a Pictures Curator...

Hey Brad-

I love art as well and collect mostly African American art from the WPA era. We do have a couple of contemporary pieces as well like Mark Greenfield a LA based artist.

He uses a eye chart metaphor to imbed in your face messages overlaying ministrel images. Very emotional conflicting things at work in his art. We love it. The ministrel images push you away as they are images we are not comfortable looking at...but at the same time the eye chart makes you look at the piece because you are trained to look at an eye chart. It is what art is about to me connecting with my emotions and challenging convential wisdom.

Thought you might enjoy this link
http://www.steveturnergallery.com/artist_pages/greenfield/greenfield_frameset.html

Ralph

Wool never worked in a tiny space
he had a huge loft from day one