Castanet

Perceived value is in the eye of the beholder, behind which is a brain that decides such things. Some of us see great value in arts, antiquities, precious metals. Others see great value in a kilo of cocaine laced with fentanyl.

Aren't we an interesting species?

The "Woman in Gold" was painted by Gustav Klimt in 1917. The subject was a beautiful, wealthy Jewess who, like so many others, died by Nazi as so many did. The artist was a talented, very bright but also a randy little guy. Fascinating story from both sides which ended in a California courtroom deciding who really owned the painting...the State or a surviving family member. Book is good, movie ok.

These paintings that have a high price placed on them also have histories attached that are fascinating if you like biography, world history, individual history, cloth (canvas) making, minerology and plant dyes used, and of course the vantage point that the artist with the big brain, chose to depict his subject.

Thank heaven for Art, otherwise this would be a bleaker world.

Catsumi wrote:
Thank heaven for Art, otherwise this would be a bleaker world.

I have no issue with art just the inflated value we put on some of it.

The artist certainly didn't get paid that much for it.

GordonH wrote:Hmm... if I had 400 million that I could afford to just spend, would I spend on this. More then likely not. Whoever it was enjoy.

Added: there is something odd about the painting, just can't put my finger on what it is.

Catsumi wrote:Ha ha. Neither you or I will EVER be allowed to finger this painting.

After reading this site: http://www.miraclesceptic.com/salvatormundi.html

I would agree on the comment here:

Look at Salvator's chest. It is too big for a man and looks like he has female breasts.

Bsuds wrote:

Catsumi wrote:
Thank heaven for Art, otherwise this would be a bleaker world.

I have no issue with art just the inflated value we put on some of it.

The artist certainly didn't get paid that much for it.

You are totally correct about the payment issue as da Vinci had to plead with the Pope for payment and also went on strike, refusing to finish a commission. Pope coughed up the dough.

The "inflated" value reflects how much someone is willing to pay for a work and should it be ever sold again, the price will be even higher. Van Gogh and da Vinci and other famous painters created works that have universal appeal and appreciation; since they have hung up their brushes for the final time their works are in limited supply.

It is pleasurable for me, an artist, to take a sitdown break and find that others out there are also interested in this fascinating topic. Knowledge network has been running a series of programs on Wednesday nights featuring the Impressionists, very nicely done.

Now, back to easel to complete the last stage of my painting (what I plan on doing will either make it or be tomorrow's trash).

GordonH wrote:

GordonH wrote:Hmm... if I had 400 million that I could afford to just spend, would I spend on this. More then likely not. Whoever it was enjoy.

Added: there is something odd about the painting, just can't put my finger on what it is.

Catsumi wrote:Ha ha. Neither you or I will EVER be allowed to finger this painting.

After reading this site: http://www.miraclesceptic.com/salvatormundi.html

I would agree on the comment here:

Look at Salvator's chest. It is too big for a man and looks like he has female breasts.

Couldn't agree more. That whole Shroud issue has been debated and fought over for years. I think the last article I read was when a snip of the shroud was requested so that investigators could do a carbon 14 dating test was flatly turned down by the church. You'd think it would be in their best interests to obtain some kind of irrefutable authentication (?)

Catsumi wrote:Couldn't agree more. That whole Shroud issue has been debated and fought over for years. I think the last article I read was when a snip of the shroud was requested so that investigators could do a carbon 14 dating test was flatly turned down by the church. You'd think it would be in their best interests to obtain some kind of irrefutable authentication (?)

You appear to have total missed the point of my last post, I was not pointing out anything about Shroud. Reread the post

Ok, help me out here. What exactly is your point? Is it that Christ was a woman...ok, I can live with that just fine. Is it that da Vinci was so short on models he had to resort to the shroud as source material? Or, that da Vinci painted the shroud?

From what I have read in the past and photos that I have seen, this murky image is much clearer here. The "original" story was that Christ was wrapped in the linen shroud and his image somehow imprinted onto the linen, or a vague representation of a human. Then, it was determined that the shroud and the death of Christ didn't match, by about 500 years.

Anyway, I am pulling this out of my memory from 30 yearsago and if there is something that needs to be said here, say it.

I am not religious, have no particular interest in it other than the Art that was produced surrounding it.

Forgive me for not getting what you are heading at, so please enlighten me.

Your interest in art is a day brightener for me in any case.

Catsumi wrote:Ok, help me out here. What exactly is your point? Is it that Christ was a woman...ok, I can live with that just fine. Is it that da Vinci was so short on models he had to resort to the shroud as source material? Or, that da Vinci painted the shroud?

From what I have read in the past and photos that I have seen, this murky image is much clearer here. The "original" story was that Christ was wrapped in the linen shroud and his image somehow imprinted onto the linen, or a vague representation of a human. Then, it was determined that the shroud and the death of Christ didn't match, by about 500 years.

Anyway, I am pulling this out of my memory from 30 yearsago and if there is something that needs to be said here, say it.

I am not religious, have no particular interest in it other than the Art that was produced surrounding it.

Forgive me for not getting what you are heading at, so please enlighten me.

Your interest in art is a day brightener for me in any case.

I don't give a damn about shroud of Turin, just it is painting of male ( Leonardo da Vinci interpretation of Jesus Christ) with what appears to be breasts. I'm sure christian church has huge issues around this. lol

Yes, Church has many concerns best kept in the murkiness of twilight.

Many paintings have hidden meanings and jokes that are evident when you are "in the know". A casual observer may never catch on until the little trick is explained.

I am sure you have looked at Heinonymous Bosch; now there is an LSD trip for you! How cunning, sly and creative. No matter how often I look at his work, usually an hour at a time, I always discover something new. And that, in a nutshell, is what makes for great art.

Catsumi wrote:Yes, Church has many concerns best kept in the murkiness of twilight.

Many paintings have hidden meanings and jokes that are evident when you are "in the know". A casual observer may never catch on until the little trick is explained.

I am sure you have looked at Heinonymous Bosch; now there is an LSD trip for you! How cunning, sly and creative. No matter how often I look at his work, usually an hour at a time, I always discover something new. And that, in a nutshell, is what makes for great art.

Lets clear something up, I'm not an art person.
I'm commenting on this because it came along, I noticed something odd about painting. Thats it

Well, you waded into the pool and here I was hoping you'd be a swimmer.

Catsumi wrote:Well, you waded into the pool and here I was hoping you'd be a swimmer.

Sorry to cause you to cry, just my observation of painting.