Recently, a Christie’s art auction became the largest auction ever. The sale featured artworks of Jackson Pollock, Roy Lichtenstein and Jean-Michel Basquiat among other artists, and generated $495 million. The sale set records that were previously unheard of. world record auctions, including nine auctions fetching more than $10 million (PS6.6m) as well as 23 fetching more than $5 million (PS3.2m). Christie’s stated that the record-breaking sales were a sign of “a new era in the art market”.
The highest-priced item in the auction on Wednesday was Pollock’s drip-painting number 19, 1948 which sold for $58.4m (PS38.3m) almost double its estimate prior to the sale.
Lightenstein’s Woman with Flowered Hat sold for $56.1 million. Another Basquiat piece, Dustheads (top of article) is worth $48.8 million.
All three pieces have set the highest prices ever offered to artists auctioned off. Christie’s described the auction’s total of $495,021,500 that included commissions to be “staggering”. Four of auctions were not sold.
Furthermore an oil painting from 1968 of Gerhard Richter has set a new record for the most expensive auction value achieved by an artist living. Richter’s painting of a photo Domplatz, Mailand (Cathedral Square, Milan) sold for $37.1 million (PS24.4 million). Sotheby’s stated Domplatz, Mailand, which depicts a cityscape with a style that is reminiscent of blurred photographs it as it is a “masterpiece of 20th Century art” and as the “epitome” of the artist’s 1960s photography painting collection. Don Bryant, founder of the Bryant Family Vineyard and the painting’s current owner, has said that the work “just knocks me over”.
Brett Gorvy, head of contemporary and post-war art Brett Gorvy, head of post-war and contemporary art “The remarkable bidding and record prices set reflect a new era in the art market,” Gorvy declared. Steven Murphy, CEO of Christie’s International, said new collectors are driving the market to a new height.
Myths of the Music-Fine Art Price Differential
When I read this article, I was amazed by the price these works were able to fetch. A few of them will not inspire a positive emotion to me, while some may be a little however for the majority of them, I can’t comprehend how their costs are being reflected in the work and the reverse is true. It is evident that these paintings were not designed to be used by people like me, who are an artist, and wealthy patrons can certainly appreciate their inherent artistic value very clearly. Visit:- https://www.thienthuvanphuc.com/
Then why isn’t music able to draw these costs? It is it feasible for an item recorded music, and not music memorabilia or an artifact of music (such as an unusual bootleg, record, bootleg, T-shirtor album artwork, etc. ) to be worth more than $1 million? Is every musician and composers doomed from a life of struggle in the music industry and struggle their way towards a profession in music? If a painting is appraised at $1 million dollars, why shouldn’t an album or piece of music be valued in the same manner? It seems that this $.99 per download cost is the highest price a song has the ability to obtain in the market regardless of its quality or contents, and the artist or musician has to recognize this price as it is.
The financial equation is like this:
1 painting equals $37 million
1 song = $.99
Sometimes people claim that music can alter the world however nobody ever said that about painting. Theoretically it is true that if people are looking for change, $.99 is the amount that we have to pay for it.
Here are some suggestions to help to understand what the monetary or value gap between music and painting is based on.
(1) It is true that there are less painters than are musicians.
(2) Musicians aren’t as skilled than artists?
(3) It’s much simpler to compose music than paint.
(4) Public opinion appreciates painting over music.
(5) paintings are more stunning than music.
(6) They are hard to duplicate, like music.
(7) Painters are more demanding than composers and musicians.
(8) Blah, blah, blah.
There isn’t a single person who would agree with all of these claims however allof them, or at the very least one or two of them, need to be true to allow the cost of painting to be so much higher than the price of music. Furthermore, I am not convinced that art lovers and great artists must deal with the same legal red tape as musicians do when they release their work to the public domain. So why isn’t there a similar reward or even greater for musicians who must protect their work as they do when creating it. Composers and musicians, however need to be more thorough in proving the authenticity of their work and receive exact appraisals on the value of their work however, they are paid less. The expense of equipment for musicians is higher than for painters.
Perhaps it’s fame, not money that musicians are seeking? This is why many musicians accept the bare amount of money they earn from the record industry or digital downloads. It’s possible that’s the reason the reason that many perform more frequently to boost their popularity, but not to make a fortune. But wait a moment it’s true that musicians earn the majority of their income through live shows and selling merchandise, not from the music. This is probably why many musicians view themselves as not composers instead, but as entertainers and performers.
What can musicians do when they don’t view themselves as entertainers instead, they see themselves as composers, who make music as an art form? They too are driven to earn money to make a living from their chosen field, there needs to be a distinct way to present their work to fans of music or art collectors looking for of treasures and curators looking for unusual pieces to put within their own private collections. Imagine a piece of music that only a few have heard before, presented and played exclusively on a specific music player in an exclusive art gallery or collection