Would you pay $72 million...

...for this painting?



An anonymous bidder paid $72.8 million for this 1950 work by American abstract artist Mark Rothko at Sotheby's auction house in New York last night.

I don't know about you guys, but $72 million is more than I make in a whole year. This painting would not be at the top of my shopping list.

*Savannah quickly gets out her paint set*


That's amazing. Not the painting - just the price.

I would not!! That doesn't seem worth it..

You've got to be kidding me!
Sometimes I don't understand the 'Art' world....
There are some paintings out there... like the above... lol, that look like kids made them or anyone... but since we are not famous, our paintings are worth nothing! But if you are famous... seems like you can just grab a brush and splatter it all around the canvas and it's worth millions...

This 1950 work by Jackson Pollock - "Number 5" - reportedly sold for 140 million last year.

Look upon it and bask in its beauty...

I rest my case.... :shifty:

It looks like a kingergarten student painted that. So no, I would definately not pay $72 million for that.

Rob wrote:

This 1950 work by Jackson Pollock - "Number 5" - reportedly sold for 140 million last year.

Look upon it and bask in its beauty...

I can do that with crayon shavings and a warm iron!!! In fact, I have done this with my preschool classes in the past. Crayon shavings, wax paper and a warm iron!!!

If I was mentally ill, high on drugs and suffering from a complete lack of common sense...I might consider it...otherwise, no.

Rose

Hey Rob, are you sure this painting was done by Mark Rothko??? I could swear this painting was done by my younger daughter Lea. :scratch:

Hmm... maybe "Mark Rothko" is just the name Lea uses when she paints? Have you noticed $72 million in her piggy bank that wasn't there before? :sillySmiley:

Rob wrote:

Hmm... maybe "Mark Rothko" is just the name Lea uses when she paints? Have you noticed $72 million in her piggy bank that wasn't there before? :sillySmiley:

Pssst Rob..........thank you for buying Lea's painting!!!

:lol!:

Rob wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but $72 million is more than I make in a whole year. This painting would not be at the top of my shopping list.

Well, gee Rob, I don't know what kind of money you make, but $72 million is more than I will make in an entire lifetime, or two, or three........

Oh, that was a typo. I meant to say that 72 dollars is more than I make in a year. But I put in a bunch of overtime last month, which is why I could afford the 72.8 million for Lea's painting. :shifty:

Rob wrote:

Oh, that was a typo. I meant to say that 72 dollars is more than I make in a year. But I put in a bunch of overtime last month, which is why I could afford the 72.8 million for Lea's painting. :shifty:

Well, I was wondering because my next question was going to be, "Are ya single?" While I'm not, for that kind of money, I could be.

Pam! :Hahaha:

Oh Savannah, you know you were thinking the same thing! :lol!:

Pam!!! I am shocked!!! You are a married woman!!!

Ahem...Rob? Well? Are ya single or what?! You can have Lea's painting for FREE!!!

Lily!!

OMG, I really don't get the 'art world' either!! Good grief...think of all the lives that could be saved by someone who has 72 million dollars to blow.

Ahem, Rob, I think you have a couple of women after ya!

pamh36 wrote:

Oh Savannah, you know you were thinking the same thing! :lol!:

LOL . . . . See, that's probably why I'm still single........I actually wasn't. :Hahaha: